SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1953 Supreme(SC) 24

M.C.MAHAJAN, S.R.DASS
Namdeo Lokman Lodhi – Appellant
Versus
Narmadabai – Respondent


Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, J.B.DADACHAN, RAJENDER NARAIN, RATNAPAKHI ANANT GOVIND, V.M.TARKUNDE

Judgement

MAHAJAN J. : This is an appeal by defendant 1 from the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in second Appeal No. 557 of1945, whereby the High Court confirmed the decree of the lower Courts granting possession of land to the respondents on the forfeiture of a lease. The appeal is confined to survey No. 86/2 at Mundhava in Poona district.

2. The principal question arising for decision in the appeal is whether notice as contemplated by S. 111 (g), T. P. Act, is necessary for the determination of a lease for non-payment of rent even where such lease was executed before the coming into force of the Transfer of Property Act. The only other question that falls for determination is whether the High Court should have interfered with the discretion of the lower Courts in refusing relief against forfeiture in the circumstances of this case.

3. The present respondents are the daughter and grandsons of the original plaintiff Vinayakbhat. His adoptive mother was Ramabai. She owned two inam lands at Mundhava which were then numbered Pratibhandi Nos. 71 and 72. Present survey Nos. 86/1 and 86/2 together correspond to old Pratibhandi No. 71. On 1-7-1863 Ramabai, while she was in








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top