Search Results for "Watandars"

9 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 9 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Minister's Order for Enquiry Under Section 59(b) of MLRC. Sale of Watan Land After Re-grant on Old Tenure Requires Enquiry Regarding Permission Under Circular Dated 13 November 1979.

The case involves a challenge by the petitioners, Vishwanath Sahadu Wakhare and others, against an order dated 11 December 2020 passed by the Hon'ble ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay Rules on Writ Petitions Challenging MRT Order on Tenancy Claim Under Maharashtra Tenancy Act. The decision addresses the validity of the tenancy declaration under Section 70(b) and Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

The petitioners, who claimed to be Watandars, filed writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay challenging a common order passed by the Maharashtra Re...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Appeals in Partition Suit, Upholds Trial Court's Decree for Partition and Separate Possession. The court held that the suit for partition was maintainable and that the plaintiffs had established their share in the joint family property.

The case involves a partition suit filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) against the respondents (defendants) seeking partition and separate possession...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Land Dispute — Restores Trial Court's Decree for Possession and Injunction. Co-sharers' Ownership Over Re-granted Lands Upheld Based on Oral and Documentary Evidence.

The case involves a dispute over agricultural lands in village Karanjgaon, formerly part of Bhor State. The plaintiffs (appellants) filed Civil Suit N...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute — Concurrent Findings of Fact Upheld. Court held that no substantial question of law arose under Section 100 CPC as the appellants failed to prove exclusive title and possession.

The case involves a second appeal filed by the original defendants (appellants) against the judgment and decree of the first appellate court, which co...