Mumbai Court January 1954 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.
Ramjibhai Virpal Shah Vs. Gordhandas Maganlal Bhagat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom370; (1954)56BOMLR365; ILR1954Bom615
Gajendkagadkar, J. 1. Second Appeal No. 917 of 1952 and two other matters have been referred to a Division Bench because they raise a common question of law of some importance. In all these matters the landlord had determined the lease in favour of his tenant and had sued to eject the tenant. The landlord's claim was resisted by the tenant; but ultimately a compromise decree was obtained by the parties. By reason of the compromise decree the defendant was allowed to remain in possession of the property for a stated period. At the end of this period the landlord sought to execute the compromise decree and claimed possession by execution process.The defendant resisted this claim on the ground that the compromise decree made him a tenant of the decree-holder and under the provisions of the Rent estriction Act, 57 of 1947, it was not open to the landlord to obtain possession. It is somewhat remarkable that in all the three matters the Courts below have held that the compromisedecree did no...
Shantilal Maganlal Vs. Dahyabhai Gordhanbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1954
Reported in: AIR1954Bom368; (1954)56BOMLR269; ILR1954Bom733
Chainani, J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge, Broach, recommending that a portion of the order passed under Section 147, Criminal P. C., by the Resident Magistrate, First Class, Jambusar, should be set aside. This order was passed by the Magistrate on an application made to him by one Dahyabhai stating that he had a right of way to his field through the lands of the opponents and that the opponents had closed this way by putting up a hedge across it in one of their lands. After holding an inquiry, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the applicant had proved the right claimed by him and that the dispute between the parties was likely to result in a breach of the peace.Accordingly he passed an order prohibiting the opponents from interfering with the exercise of the said right, until the rights of parties were decided by a competent Court. He also ordered the opponents to 'forthwith remove the hedge', put up by them and 'make a way by which carts, bullocks...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›