Mumbai Court July 1925 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vidyavakdhak Sangh Company Vs. Ayyappa Sangirimallappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1152
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This action was instituted by the plaintiffs to recover possession, together with mesne profits and costs, of the land in dispute from the defendants, alleging that the land belonged to the father of defendant No. 3 who agreed to look after the trees, plant new trees and pay rent equal to the assessment, and that defendant No. 3 having denied their title they were entitled to take possession without giving any notice to quit.2. The learned trial Judge found all the allegations of the plaintiffs proved, but thought that notice to quit was necessary, and on that ground he dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for possession.3. The appellate Judge having referred to various decisions said :-From the rulings cited above it in clear that a disclaimer of the landlord's title works forfeiture. The fact that there has been a disclaimer is not disputed; I therefore hold that no notice to quit is necessary in this case.4. Accordingly the decree of the trial Court was set as...
Vidyavardhak Sangh Company and ors. Vs. Ayyappa Sangirimallappa and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom524; 90Ind.Cas.614
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This action was instituted by the plaintiffs to recover possession, together with mesne profits and costs, of the land in dispute from the defendants alleging that the land belonged to the father of defendant No. 3 who agreed to look after the trees, plant new trees and pay rent equal to the essessment, and that defendant No. 3 having denied their title they were entitled to take possession without giving any notice to quit.2. The learned Trial Judge found all the allegations of the plaintiffs proved, but thought that notice to quit was necessary and on that ground he dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for possession.3. The Appellate Judge having referred to various decisions said:From the rulings cited above it is clear that a disclaimer of the landlord's title works forfeiture. The fact that there has been a disclaimer is not disputed. I, therefore, hold that no notice to quit is necessary, in this case.4. Accordingly the decree of the Trial Court was set aside an...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›