Mumbai Court July 1951 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.
Parasu Kushappa and ors. Vs. Vishwambhar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom136; (1952)54BOMLR59; ILR1952Bom461
Vyas, J. 1. These two appeals arise out of a decision of the first Class Subordinate Judge of Kolhapar in Regular Suit No. 2/33 of 1939. That suit was filed by the plaintiffs for recovering possession of Revision Survey No. 208 or Sangav, Taluka Kagal, admeasuring 8 1/2 big as, from the defendants. The contention taken up by the defendants in resisting the suit was that they were permanent tenants. The learned trial Judge accepted that contention and dismissed the suit so far as the relief for possession was concerned and passed a decree in the following terms:'Plaintiffs should recover Rs. 372 for each of the three years preceding suit and Rs. 400 a year as rent from the year of suit from defendants 26 to 28 and 33 and 34, who are declared to be permanent tenants. The above sums with proportionate costs should be recovered by the plaintiffs from the above defendants and their estate. The remaining defendants are liable to contribute to the rent to the plaintiff, in proportion to their...
Kantilal Manilal Parekh Vs. Ranchhoddas K. Bhatt
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1951
Reported in: AIR1953Bom98; (1952)54BOMLR786
(1) This was a suit filed by a constituent against a sharebroker claiming a certain sum of money as due from the share broker in respect of transactions effected by the broker on behalf of the plaintiff on the Bombay Stock Exchange. The defendant put in a counter-claim claiming a large sum of money as due to him and stating that the plaintiff had merely forestalled him by filing a suit. As the claim in the suit was below Rs. 10,000, I had no jurisdiction to deal with it and the suit stands transferred to the City Civil Court. As, however, the counterclaim exceeds that amount, I have jurisdiction to deal with it and have proceeded to do so.(2) Now, the question that arises in this counter-claim (and also in several other suits which are on my board and which have been filed by brokers against their constituents) is whether, assuming that the contracts entered into by the brokers on behalf of their constituents were void, the brokers are entitled to an indemnity from their constituents.(...
Ramabai Govind Vs. Raghunath Vasudeo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1951
Reported in: AIR1952Bom106; (1951)53BOMLR883; ILR1952Bom226
Bhagwati, J.[1] This is a Letters Patent appeal from a judgment of Chainani J. delivered in Second Appeals No. 608 of 1948 and 1110 of 1943 against the judgment of the lower appellate Court constituted by the learned Judge, Small Cause Court, Poona, (with appellate powers), who allowed the appeal against the decision of the learned Extra Joint Civil Judge, Poona, dismissing the plaintiff's suit with costs. The facts which led to the filing of the suit may be shortly stated as under. [2] One Mahadev Gadre, had two sons Balkrishna and Govind, Balkrishna was the elder son, but he was spiritually inclined and almost renounced this world. He bad a son Trimbak alias Bapurao, and Trimbak had two sons, Martand and Janardan. Govind wag a pleader. The joint family of Mahadev Gadre, Balkriehna and Govind flourished and owned large movable and immovable properties. They also carried on a money-lending business in which large capital wag invested. After the death of Mahadev Gadre, both the brothers...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›