Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 153 (2.90 seconds)
Documents citing Kanji Manji vs The Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay on 27 February, 1962

Jaharlal Saha And Ors. vs Pradip Saha And Ors. on 18 November, 2005

In the case of Textile Association (India) (supra), the said Bench considered the case of H.C. Pandey v. G.C. Pal (supra) and Kanji Manji v. Trustees for the Port of Bombay (supra), and specifically held that the principles laid down in those cases relating to the service of notice did not apply when the question of making all the joint tenants as parties in a suit for eviction arose and held that in the absence of such joint tenants, the suit was not maintainable.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 8 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Budh Sen vs Sheel Chandra Agarwal And Ors. on 9 August, 1977

It was under these circumstances that the Supreme Court repelled the plea that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the heirs and legal representatives of Roopji Jai Raj. We are unable to see how the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanji Manji v. Trustees of the Port of Bombay can be pressed in aid in support of the contention that a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act served only on one of the co-tenants can operate to terminate the tenancy of other co-tenants whose status as tenants remains unaffected by the notice served only on one of the tenants. As already observed, there exists no unity of title between the co-tenants and it is thus not unreasonable to hold that the title of co-tenants other than the one served remains untouched by such a notice.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Tirathdas Pokhardas Kalda vs Smt. Suribai Assumal Moolchandani And ... on 6 November, 2006

In Kanji Manji v. The Trustees of Port of Bombay (supra) challenge considered was whether service of notice upon one of tenants and not upon the heirs or legal representatives of other joint tenant was valid or not. In paragraph 7, Hon Apex Court has noticed that once tenancy was found to be joint, notice to one of the joint tenants was sufficient and the suit for same reason was also good. It was not necessary to join legal representatives of other joint tenant.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Sajjan Kumar Agrawal And Ors vs Rent Contral Appellate Tribu Ors on 22 February, 2011

Perusal of the paras referred aforesaid shows that judgment in the case of Kanji Manji (supra) and S.C. Pandey (supra) was not applied taking those cases only regarding effect of the service of the notice to a joint tenant. It seems that para 7 of Kanji Manji's judgment was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Because in that case not only service of notice to joint tenant, but even suit was held to be good and accordingly binding on the joint tenant in his absence as a party respondent.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M N Bhandari - Full Document

Smt. Emilia Tinoco (Deceased By Lrs.) vs Shashikant Naguesh Gad And Others on 4 October, 1996

12. The bone of contention between the parties is whether the tenancy in question is joint tenancy or tenancy-in-common, pursuant to the death of the original tenant Naguesh Gad. On this aspect, learned Advocate for the appellants has placed reliance on two rulings of the Apex Court to substantiate his contention that the tenancy in question is joint tenancy, The first ruling upon which reliance has been placed is Kanjit Manji v. The Trustees of the Port of Bombay (supra). In that case, the Trustees of Port of Bombay had granted lease to five persons who were trading in partnership under the name and style of Mancherji Vadilal and Company. This lease was granted in the year 1924. Subsequently, on 28th February, 1947, the rights under the said lease were assigned to Rupji Jeraj and Kanji Manji as joint tenants and this assignment had been accepted by the lessors. In the suit, defendant had raised a number of pleas, the main contention being that the Notice dated 25th January, 1956 was invalid inasmuch as it had been served only upon one of the lessees (Kanji Manji) and not upon the heirs and legal representatives of Rupji Jeraj. On these facts, the Apex Court held that the deed of assignment had categorically spoken of assignment as joint tenants, which was accepted by the Trustees of the Port of Bombay and, as such, Rupji Jeraj and the respondents must be regarded as joint tenants. The Apex Court further observed that once it is held that the tenancy was joint, a notice to one of the joint tenants was sufficient and the suit for the same reason was also good.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amal Krishna Aditya vs Ganesh Chandra Das on 2 March, 1998

18. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanji Manji (supra) as relied upon by the trial Court, was a case under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, (57 of 1947), (as amended by Bombay Act of 4 of 1953). In that case, by a deed of assignment dated February 28, 1947, five (5) persons took the suit premises as joint tenants, the notice of ejectment was served upon one of the joint tenants and the suit was also filed against one of such joint tenants only, as would appear from the facts of the said case. The Supreme Court considering the said facts observed in paragraph No. 7 at page 471 of the said decision as follows :--
Calcutta High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Mohd. Nasiruddin vs E­274/2013 Page 1/22 on 2 June, 2014

The petition is not bad on account of non­joinder of necessary parties in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kanji Manji Vs. Trustees of the Port of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 468 (Supra) and by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mohd. Aslam & Ors. Vs. Sajid Parvez & Ors. The petition is also not bad on account of mis­joinder of petitioners in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Bhagwat Prasad Sharma Vs. Pinky Aggarwal & Anr., 2009 (107) DRJ 517 (Supra).
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Paru Narayani, Revn. vs Thomas Varghese And Anr. on 12 August, 1987

"The observation in Kanji v. Trustees, Port of Bombay (AIR 1963 SC 468) (in para 7 of the report) that notice to one alone of several joint tenants is sufficient applies only to a case where the several tenants hold as joint tenants and not where, as in this case, they hold as tenants in common. That is clear from the emphasis placed by their Lordships on the circumstance that the tenants took the premises as joint tenants, the deed of assignment by which they acquired the lease expressly providing that they were taking as joint tenants. Where joint owners are joint tenants there is unity of title, unity of interest and the right of survivorship in addition to unity of possession so that it might be said that any one of the joint tenants represents t he entire estate-indeed in the Supreme Court case already referred to it would appear that one of the two joint tenants had died and the lease had vested solely in the other by survivorship before notice to quit was served on the other so that there was no question of the legal representatives of the deceased joint tenant having any interest whatsoever in the lease so as to require that notice should go to them. Where, however, the joint owners are only tenants in common there is only unity of possession, not of title or interest, and to determine a tenancy so held in accordance with Section 106 of the T. P. Act notice must be addressed to all the tenants though proof of service in one will be prima facie proof of service on all."
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next