Mumbai Court February 1948 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.
Sidram Lachmaya Vs. Mallaya Lingaya Chilaka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1948
Reported in: AIR1949Bom137; (1949)51BOMLR34
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. Two questions have been referred to this full bench by my brother sen and Bavdekar JJ., and the two questions are :(1) Whether the possession of a tenant is adverse to the landlord upon the expiration of the tenancy merely because the tenant has not paid rent ?(2) Whether to a suit based upon title by a landlord against his ex-tenant Article 139 is the article which applies, or Article 14412. For the purpose of disposing of these two questions it is sufficient to state just two facts. The plaintiff filed the suit among other reliefs for a relief that he was the owner of the property with which we are concerned in this Full Bench. He was the tenant of the defendant and that tenancy terminated on June 11, 1925, and the suit was filed on July 7, 1938. The plaintiff's contention, with which we are now concerned, was that the title of his landlord had become extinguished under Section 28 of the Indian Limtation Act, that a new title was created in him and therefore he wa...
Raja Mahadeva Royal Y.B. Vs. Raja Virabasavachikka Royal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1948
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR638
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is a consolidated appeal and cross-appeal, from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated November 1,1940, affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chittoor dated November 4, 1935.2. The plaintiff is the appellant before the Board; defendant No. 2 is respondent No. 1, hereinafter called the respondent. He is the main contesting respondent and he has filed the cross-appeal,3. The dispute in the appeal is concerned with the succession to the impartible estate of Punganur, known as the Punganur Zemindari, situated in the Chittoor district of the province of Madras. Succession to the Zemindari is regulated by the rule of lineal primogeniture and it devolves on the senior male member nearest to the last holder by right of survivorship. The estate is subject to the Madras Impartible Estates Act (Act II of 1904).4. The last holder of the Zemindari, Raja Sambasadasiva, died in 1923, without leaving any male issue. As the paternal uncle of the late ...
Padamsi Premchand Vs. Laxman Vishnu Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1948
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR28
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. One Keshavji Manekchand was adjudicated an insolvent on a petition presented by his creditors on August 24, 1940. Subsequently the Receiver in the insolvency filed three applications for setting aside three deeds of transfer dated January 25, 1935, January 80, 1935, and March 30, 1932, These transfer deeds were: one in favour of his son Harkissondas Keshavji, the second for the education and marriages of his daughters and for the maintenance and residence of the insolvent himself and third again for the benefit of his son Harkissondas.2. In the trial Court an issue was raised whether the Court had jurisdiction on its insolvency side to set aside these deeds of transfer. The learned Judge took the view that Section 53 of the Insolvency Act did not apply to the case as the deeds of transfer were made more than two years before the date of the insolvency petition, but he held that the Court had jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Act. An appeal was preferred to the Dis...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›