Mumbai Court March 1932 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.
Narayan Vithal Kothari Vs. Mangesh Vithal Lad.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom599; (1932)34BOMLR1287; 140Ind.Cas.567
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of the lands described in the plaint, and Rs. 240 as arrears of rent for the years 1918 to 1921 and Rs. 400 as profits for the years 1921 to 1924, and Rs. 60 as interest on the two sums.2. It appears that a permanent lease was passed in favour of one Vithal Sakharain Kothari, the father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3 by Vaman Krishnaji Naik on August 80. 1885,3. In the lower Court the defendants contended that the plaintiff had not acquired the right of the landlord as the real owners were the daughters of Vaman, and not the vendors of the plaintiff, who were the heirs of Krishnaji. It was contended that Krishnaji, the father of Vaman, died in the year 1882 and Varnan died in 1900, and therefore the persons entitled to the interest of the landlord were the daughters of Vaman. It was further contended by the defendants that the plaintiff was estopped from making the present claim, and that the claim was not within ti...
Vallabhdas Mulji Vs. Pranshankar Narbheshankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom619; (1932)34BOMLR1429; 113Ind.Cas.313
Blackwell, J. 1. This is a summons for an order that the Prothonotary and Senior Master do pay to the applicants, the attorneys for the plaintiff in the suit, a sum of Rs. 2,680-13-8 deposited with him by defendants Nos. 1, 4, and 5 in the circumstances hereinafter mentioned.2. The plaintiff was a mortgagor. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 were mortgagees with a power of sale. They purported to sell the mortgaged propetry to defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 sold it to defendants Nos. 6, 7 and 8. The suit was for a declaration that the sale to defendant No. 1 was void. Defendants Nos. 6, 7, and 8 were struck out from the suit with the plaintiff's consent. Ultimately the suit was tried byFawcett J., who held that the plaintiff was entitled to avoid the sale. The costs of the hearing were given to the plaintiff against defendantsNos. 2 to 5 by the decree dated March 15, 1926. The mortgagees claimed that they (sic) are entitled to be paid the mortgage debt and various sums (sic) ended by them on th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›