Mumbai Court August 1942 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.
Donkangouda Ramchandragouda Vs. Revanshiddappa Shivalingappa Balganur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom148; (1943)45BOMLR194
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the Assistant Judge of Bijapur, and the question involved is as to the construction of a rent-note, dated December 4, 1879, by which the predecessor of the plaintiffs rented a lease of certain property to Basappa, the predecessor-in-title of the defendants. Basappa died prior to 1904, and the defendants have always remained in possession, and have paid no rent since the death of Basappa. Therefore, unless the lease created a permanent tenancy, the plaintiffs' title would be barred by adverse possession, because the possession of the defendants would become adverse on the death of Basappa. If the tenancy was a permanent one, the possession of the defendants would not become adverse until they disputed the plaintiffs' title, which was only a year or two before the suit was filed; so that, if the tenancy was permanent, limitation would not bar the defendants.2. The document in question is in these terms :-I, Basappa bin...
Shaikh Ahmed Shaikh Mahomed Ashraf Vs. Bai Fatma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom48; (1942)44BOMLR919
1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the Sessions Judge of Surat upholding the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate directing the applicant to pay maintenance to his son and daughter under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code.The daughter is aged twenty-one, and the point, which is taken on this application, is that Section 488 is confined to minors. The section provides that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife or his legitimate or illegitimate child unable to maintain itself, an order can be made.2. We were referred by Mr. Thakor to the caste of Krishnaswami Ayyar v. Chandravadana (1913) I.L.R. 37 Mad. 565 where the learned Judge expressed the opinion that, as the word 'child' has not been defined in the Criminal Procedure Code, it means in Section 488 a person who has not reached full age. A similar opinion was expressed by a learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Hemantakumar Banerji v. Manorama Debee ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›