Court : Mumbai Goa
..... of a house of residence and of land with coconut trees and other trees, and it is bounded on the east by the property of the same designation of the heirs of avelino de souza and camilo da costa; on the west and south by the mixed property of the same designation of manoel antonio vaz and on the north by nomoxim of the heirs of antonio gabriel mergulhao and at present bounded on the east by the property zorody of the heirs of valentine coelho and camilo da costa, on the west by that of leao constancio diniz, gregorio taumaturgo diniz, described ..... its courtyard known as zorody situated at aquem, bounded on the east by the property of the same name belonging to the heirs of avelino de souza and camilo de costa; on the west and south by mixed property of the same name belonging to manuel antonio vaz; and on the north by nomoxim of the heirs of antonio gabriel mergulhao, actually bounded on the east by the property of the same name zorody belonging to the heirs of valentin coelho and camilo da costa and on the west by the property of leao constancio diniz and gregorio taumaturgo diniz ..... 3 and 4 have filed the present second appeal which has been admitted on 28/09/2011 on the following substantial questions of law:- (1) whether the appellate court has misinterpreted section 91 of indian evidence act inasmuch as it is held that the evidence adduced by the appellants to show that the auction sale included 1/5th of the property 'zorody' enrolled in matriz no. ..... 1932 patna 80. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
..... he read out the provisions of sections 4, 9, 10, 14, 15, 19 and 22 of indian partnership act, 1932 ('the act') and submitted that shri pandharinath chafadkar being the partner of the complainant was the agent of the said firm and hence, he was bound to transfer the said amount, if realized, into the account of the firm. ..... from the above provisions of the act, it is clear that every partner is an agent of the firm and his other partners for the purpose of business of the firm and the acts of every partner bind the firm and his partners, unless, of course, the partner had, in fact no authority to act for the firm and his other partners. ..... he further submitted that pw1 had power generally to do all acts, deeds and things as may be necessary in the premises on behalf of the firm to all intents and purposes as the partners constituting the same for the time being, could do in their own person. ..... partner to be agent of the firm - subject to the provisions of this act, a partner is the agent of the firm for the purpose of the business of the firm.? ..... and generally to do acts, deeds and things as may be necessary in the premises on behalf of the said firm to all intents and purposes as the partners constituting the same for the time being could do in their own person.? 15. ..... 22, the act of a partner which is done to carry on, in the usual way, business of the kind carried on by the firm, binds the firm. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
..... performance of contract, high court had framed two issues, one related to doubt about the power of attorney having been allegedly executed by the defendant in favour of his brother enabling him to alienate his share in the property and the other related to non exercise of power by the trial court in refusing specific performance of the contract by resorting to sub-section 2 of section 20 of the specific relief act requiring the high court to remand the case to the trial court after setting aside its judgment and decree. ..... thus, i find great substance in the argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the whole emphasis of the reasoning given by the trial court in dismissing the suit is that it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish the identity and boundary of the suit property and one of the ways in which this duty could have been better performed by the plaintiff, in the opinion of the trial court, was by examining some expert in the field as witness of the plaintiff. 23. ..... the predecessor in title of said vendors and also the plaintiff acquired the suit property by a deed dated 25.02.1932 and thereafter, the suit property came to be allotted to the vendors and to the plaintiff as per the deed of partition dated 06.08.1958. 6. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
..... pereira, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the appellants have been granted an aforamento in the year 1932 for the purpose of cultivation and putting up a construction therein by the respondent and according to him the appellants are in possession of the said portion of the property since such date. ..... but however, considering the admitted position and the documents referred to herein above, the courts below were not justified to refuse the relief sought by the appellants but however the appellants are entitled for the relief to the effect that they are the holders of an aforamento from the respondent in terms of the final possession granted to them as per the exhibit c-27 colly in the property surveyed under no.53/2 of collem village. 7. ..... no doubt, the appellants are not entitled to the manner in which the relief has been claimed in the plaint, as the question as to whether the appellants are entitled to get the remission in the payment of foro is a matter which the appellants would have to exercise in terms of the provisions of law. 6. ..... the learned counsel further pointed out that as the appellants are seeking a declaration of title in terms of section 34 of the specific relief act, it was incumbent upon the appellants to show in what manner their alleged rights were infringed to seek a declaration. ..... section 58 of the evidence act clearly provides that fact admitted need not be proved. .....
Tag this Judgment!