Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Gopalrao Ganesh Vs. Kishor Kalidas

Gopalrao Ganesh vs Kishor Kalidas

Type Court Judgment Court Mumbai Decided Jul 06, 1885
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/331985

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Landlord and tenant - Ejectment--Notice to quit--Finding of Appellate Court without statement of reasons not conclusive. -

Key legal issue
Tenancy

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gopalrao Ganesh

Respondent

Kishor Kalidas

Legal References

Reported In
(1885)ILR9Bom527

Excerpt

landlord and tenant - ejectment--notice to quit--finding of appellate court without statement of reasons not conclusive. - charles sargent, c.j.1. the assistant judge has disposed of this case in lavour of the defendant on two grounds: (1), that, assuming defendant to have been plaintiff's tenant, he could not be ejected without notice.2. that the evidence was, in his opinion, strongly in favour of defendant's proprietary right.3. as the defendant has throughout denied the plaintiff's title the plaintiff would be under no obligation to prove notice, supposing it to be established that defendant was his tenant. see woodfall on landlord and tenant, (11th ed.), p. 325; doe d. trustees of the bedford charity v. payne 7 q.b. 287; vivian v. moat 16 ch. div. 730.4. as to the opinion expressed by the assistant judge in favour of defendant's proprietary title, it is accompanied by no reasons, and cannot be accepted as a conclusive finding-krishnarav yash-vant v. vasudev apaji gholikar i.l.r. 8 bom. 371. we must, therefore, reverse the decree, and send the case back for a fresh decision. costs of appeal to abide the result.

Full Judgment

Charles Sargent, C.J.

1. The Assistant Judge has disposed of this case in lavour of the defendant on two grounds: (1), that, assuming defendant to have been plaintiff's tenant, he could not be ejected without notice.

2. That the evidence was, in his opinion, strongly in favour of defendant's proprietary right.

3. As the defendant has throughout denied the plaintiff's title the plaintiff would be under no obligation to prove notice, supposing it to be established that defendant was his tenant. See Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, (11th ed.), p. 325; Doe d. Trustees of the Bedford Charity v. Payne 7 Q.B. 287; Vivian v. Moat 16 Ch. Div. 730.

4. As to the opinion expressed by the Assistant Judge in favour of defendant's proprietary title, it is accompanied by no reasons, and cannot be accepted as a conclusive finding-Krishnarav Yash-vant v. Vasudev Apaji Gholikar I.L.R. 8 Bom. 371. We must, therefore, reverse the decree, and send the case back for a fresh decision. Costs of appeal to abide the result.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial