Mumbai Court September 1978 Judgments
Paikanna Vithoba Mamidwar and anr. Vs. Laxminarayan Sukhdeo Dalya and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1978
Reported in: AIR1979Bom298; (1979)81BOMLR501; 1979MhLJ149
ORDER1. This revision application is against an order passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandrapur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 41 of 1972 holding that the suit was bad for mis-joinder of causes of action and parties.2. The brief facts which may be stated, and which are not in dispute, giving rise to this revision are that the plaintiffs are the owners of 2 different plots of lands Nos. 76 and 77. The plaintiffs are father and son. The plots 76 and 77 belonged to them as members of a Joint Hindu family once. Later the parties came to a partition. A godown stands built upon both the portions of plots 76 and 77. To the south of this building and plots of land is the property of defendants 1 and 2 being Plot No. 78, The plaintiffs complained that by the act of the defendants digging 5 pits for the purpose of erecting cement pillars and constructing a plinth thereon, the defendants have encroached upon plot No. 77. A contention was raised that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of pa...
Tag this Judgment!Shagwan Sonaji Ambhure Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1978
Reported in: (1979)81BOMLR437
Deshmukh, J.1. These four petitions have been referred to a division Bench without a speaking order. It is, therefore, necessary to state the point that arises for our decision.2. The undisputed facts which are similar are these: The petitioners in the first three petitions are the land-holders and all of them have been declared as surplus holders by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (S.L. D.T.). Three of them filed appeals before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the M.R.T.). The Government had not filed independent appeals nor cross-objections as provided by Section 33 (1A) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceilings Act). After hearing the appeals of the three surplus holders, not only the appeals were dismissed, but while doing so, the M.R.T. modified the order passed by the S.L.D.T. and added some more acreage to the surplus area of the three appellants. Being dissatisfied with this...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Bayadabai Vs. the State of Maharashtra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1978
Reported in: 1979CriLJ528
ORDERSawant, J.1. This is a revision application filed by the petitioner-accused against her conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 325 I. P. C. Briefly stated the facts leading to the prosecution of the accused are as follows : One Deoram aged about 10 years and his mother Laxmibai reside in the neighbourhood of the accused. On 17-3-1977 at about 7-00 p. m., Deoram's sister Tarabai had been to the common water tap when she was prevented from taking water by the members of the locality, Thereafter, Deoram's mother Laxmibai and Deoram went to the water tap when Laxmibai was caught by one lady by name 'Masterin'. Deoram's sister Tarabai tried to separate them. At that time Deoram also tried to separate them. It is alleged that it is at that time that the accused gave a fist blow on the face of Deoram on account of which blow, his one tooth from the upper jaw was broken and the same came out of its socket. The next day i. e. on 18-3-1977 Laxmibai took her son Deoram to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagdishprasad Kesarmal Sabu Vs. Dharamdas Tharumal Hasnani and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1978
Reported in: AIR1980Bom42; (1979)81BOMLR536
ORDER1. Respondent No. 2 herein originally owned a house situated in the City of Amravati. This house consists of three storeys. There are a few shops on the ground floor which had been let out to certain persons. The first floor had been let out to the petitioner at a monthly rental of Rs. 75/- and he is in occupation of that portion of the house as a tenant. Respondent No. 2 made an application to the Rent Controller under the provisions of Clause 13 (3) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Order') against the three tenants occupying the ground floor and the petitioner for permission to serve quit notices on them. In so far as the petitioner was concerned, respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioner was in arrears of rent from 6th June, 1969 to 5th Nov., 1969 to the tune of Rs. 375/-, that he was habitual defaulter, that he (respondent No. 2) wanted the portion of the house in the occupation of the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›