Skip to content


Joti Bhimrav Vs. Balu BIn Bapuji and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1877)ILR1Bom208
AppellantJoti Bhimrav
RespondentBalu BIn Bapuji and anr.
Excerpt:
miras - razinama--abandonment of miras right--ejectment. - warden and gibbs, jj.1. the court consider that the assistant judge was in error in holding that a mirasdar cannot oust a tenant who has been put in possession by a collector (vide salu v. ravji 1 bom. h.c. rep. 41). not only has this court decided to the above effect, but it has also held that a mirasdar who has given in a razinama has the right to recover his land if he sues within the period of limitation, unless in that document it is expressly stipulated that he has abandoned his miras right. the decree of the assistant judge is reversed and the case remanded for re-trial on its merits.2. the court reverses the decree of the acting assistant judge, dated 4th of march 1868 and remands the cause for re-trial with reference to the above judgment. costs to follow final decision.
Judgment:

Warden and Gibbs, JJ.

1. The Court consider that the Assistant Judge was in error in holding that a Mirasdar cannot oust a tenant who has been put in possession by a Collector (vide Salu v. Ravji 1 Bom. H.C. Rep. 41). Not only has this Court decided to the above effect, but it has also held that a Mirasdar who has given in a razinama has the right to recover his land if he sues within the period of limitation, unless in that document it is expressly stipulated that he has abandoned his miras right. The decree of the Assistant Judge is reversed and the case remanded for re-trial on its merits.

2. The Court reverses the decree of the Acting Assistant Judge, dated 4th of March 1868 and remands the cause for re-trial with reference to the above judgment. Costs to follow final decision.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //