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

1955 Supreme(Bom) 115

P.B.GAJENDRAGADKAR
Pandurang Laxman Mohite – Appellant
Versus
Kaluram Bahiru Bhikule – Respondent


Judgment

1. This revisionat application must be allowed on a point of jurisdiction. It is one of those cases where the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Poona lias not cared to deliver any judgment though the issues framed before him were partly of fact and partly of law, and the only assistance I can get from his judgment is from the reference made by the learned Judge to certain authorities against the findings recorded by him below. the issues.

The issues also have not been properly framed because the point of jurisdiction which Mr. K. V. Joshi has raised before me on behalf of the petitioner has not formed the subject matter of the issues though the said point was specifically raised by the petitioner in his written statement.

2. The question of jurisdiction arises in this way. On 4-7-1952, an agreement of sale took place between the parties. The plaintiff is the purchaser and the defendant is the vendor. The property which was the subject matter of the agreement was a house in Poona. It was agreed to be purchased by the plaintiff for Rs. 12,000/-. Rs. l,000/- was paid as earnest money.

The period stipulated for the performance of the contract was four months. The co














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