Mumbai Court August 1926 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.
Maganlal Dulabhdas Vs. Bhudar Purshottam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom192; (1927)29BOMLR222; 101Ind.Cas.35
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued defendant No. 1 to recover possession of a certain shop situated at Nandurbar with Rs. 50 per month as mesne profits. He alleged that he and Bhagvandas, defendant No. 2, were partners and owners of the shop named Maneklal Jagjivandas ; that the tenancy of defendant No. 1 terminated on February 1, 1923 ; that he had given notice to defendant No. 1 on January 13, 1923, to vacate the premises; and that defendant No. 2 was joined as a defendant because he did not join with him in the suit as a plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 pleaded that as a matter of fact there was a written lease for a period of three years from Samvat 1976, and that as a fact the oral tenancy, which was to expire on February 1, 1923, was extended for one year ; that the notice given by the plaintiff alone was not a good notice, and that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit.2. On the issues framed, the trial Court found that as a fact the tenancy was for a fixed period from Feb...
Barjorji Shapurji Vs. Shripatprasadji Viharilalji Acharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom145; (1927)29BOMLR215
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case gave notice to the defendant to vacate the lands in suit in November 1920. According to that notice, he was required to give up the lands on March 31, 1921. The plaintiff claimed to be a mortgagee from the original Inamdars. The defendant was on the land as a tenant of the mortgagors. The defendant pleaded that ho was a permanent tenant; that the mortgagors were necessary parties; and that the plaintiff was neither entitled to possession nor to enhance the rent. The first issue raised was whether the plea that the defendant was a permanent tenant was res judicata in consequence of the finding in the previous litigation between the same parties in Suit No. 48 of 1915.2. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plea of permanent tenancy was not now open to the defendant as that question was hoard and finally decided in the previous suit between the same parties. The further question raised in the issues was whether it was not open to the mortg...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›