Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (1.37 seconds)
Documents citing Dhondi Tukaram vs Dadoo Piraji And Ors. on 8 December, 1952

Shankar Raoji Patil vs Mahadu Govind Chawan on 9 September, 1954

But it is urged on the strength of the judgment in Dhondi Tuharam v. Dadoo Piraji that even though the Mamlatdar may impliedly hold that the petitioners are trespassers, he has no jurisdiction to grant a relief to respondent No. 1 and order possession against trespassers. The contention is that it is only when the tenant wants possession from his landlord that under Section 29(1) the Mamlatdar can pass an order for possession in his favour, but when the tenant is seeking possession against a trespasser, the Tenancy Act confers no jurisdiction upon the Mamlatdar to give him possession and the tenant must be relegated to his rights in a civil Court, and what is urged is that since the Prant Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioners were trespassers,, he should have directed respondent No. 1 to file a suit in a civil Court and not order possession.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 8 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Mela Kabhai vs Motibhai Kahandas Patel on 20 March, 1958

The application was held to be not maintainable because it was not under Section 29 of the Act, so that the Mamlatdar had no occasion to exercise his powers under Section 70 of the Act. It appears to us that when the learned Judges decided this case the relevant observations of the Division Bench in Dhondi Tukaram v. Dadoo Piraji were not brought to their attention. It further appears that the provision of Section 74(1)(a) of the Act was also not brought to their notice.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Shaikh Kasambhai Nurbhai vs Jenatbibi D/O. Husainali Niyajali ... on 26 March, 1973

But it is urged on the strength of the judgment in Dhondi Tukaram v. Dadoo Piraji that even though the Mamlatdar may impliedly held that the petitioners are trespassers, he has no jurisdiction to grant a relief to respondent No. 1 and order possession against trespassers. The contention is that it is only when the tenant wants possession from his landlord that under Section 29(1) the Mamlatdar can pass an order for possession in his favour, but when the tenant is seeking possession against a trespasser, the Tenancy Act confers no jurisdiction upon the Mamlatdar to give him possession and the tenant must be relegated ti% his rights in a civil Court, and what is urged is that since the Prant Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioners were trespassers, be should have directed respondent No 1 to file a suit in a Civil Court and not order possession.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Pandurang Hari Jadhav vs Shankar Maruti Todkar on 30 June, 1960

In Dhondi Tukaram v. Dadoo Piraji all that was done was that the suit was kept pending till the return of the finding from the Mamlatdar. There was no challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court. An incidental issue which could not be tried by the civil Court and which the Mamlatdar alone was competent to try, was referred to him. Recourse was had to this step with a view to save the jurisdiction of the civil Court. I do not think that it would be competent to the civil Court to transfer the suit to the Mamlatdar in the absence of any specific provision and unless that is done, the difficulty of limitation may come in, at any rate, in some cases.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Rajkot vs Jignesh on 10 May, 2011

Actually the observation and view expressed by the Court in case of Dhondi Tukaram (supra) paved the way for amendment in the Tenancy Act which introduced Section 85 in the Tenancy Act; and (b) the said observation and view of the Court is in respect of civil court's jurisdiction which, even otherwise is the Court of inherent and original jurisdiction unlike the tribunal which has limited jurisdiction as conferred by the Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - S J Mukhopadhaya - Full Document

Rajesab Wallad Imamsab Bagwan vs Harishchandra Honnawar on 15 February, 1954

9. It was urged by Mr. Kalagate that certain observations made in Dhondi Tukaram v. Dadoo Piraji (1952) 55 Bom. L.R. 663, 669, 670 indicated that the Court had expressed a view contrary to the one that I am taking. That was a case in which a suit was filed in the year 1946 by the plaintiff for possession of certain lands claiming that the tenancy of the defendants had determined by efflux of time, and that the defendants had failed and neglected to vacate and deliver possession, even though they were called upon so to do. It was held that the suit having been instituted prior to the date on which the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1948 came to be enacted, the suit could be tried and the appeal from the decree passed in the suit could also be prosecuted as if the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act of 1948 had not been passed. It was observed at p. 669 of the report:
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Minocher Behramji Damanial vs Hema N. Dadachanji And Ors. on 8 April, 1981

That decision does not deal with the effect of S. 11 of the Civil P. C. In construing S. 10 of Civil P. C. It only say that the general principle of res judicata are applicable even to the cases which are not specifically covered by the provisions of S. 11 of the Civil P. C. Mr. Kapadio then relied on Dhondi v. Dadoo, AIR 1954 Bom 100, That case deals neither with Sec. 10 nor with Section 11 of the Civil P. C. That case arose under S. 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act before its amendment authorising the Civil Courts to refer the question to the Mamlatdar. Under that Act the only authority which has a power to decide whether the person is an agricultural tenant or not is the Mainlatdar and the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts to give such a decision is barred. A suit was filed in normal Civil Court under which such an issue arose. The question was whether in such circumstances the suit should be dismissed or stayed. In this context an order was passed for staying the suit and not dismissing the same. It was held that in all such cases where the Civil Court cannot entertain the plea and accepts the objection that it has no jurisdiction to try it, it should not proceed to dismiss that suit straightway; the proper procedure to adopt in such cases would be to direct the party should raises such a plea to obtain a decision from the Mamlatdar within a reasonable time. This case has no application in the context of the present case, It is clear that in this case even the City Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide, incidentally, as to whether the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is that of a landlord and tenant. The only consequence will be that if the relationship is as contended by the defendant, the City Civil Court will have to return the plaint for what of jurisdiction.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Shivappa Satawappa vs Gajanan Chintaman And Anr. on 31 March, 1953

(i) that the lands were agricultural lands, and (ii) that the defendants were protected tenants, the question whether the lands were agricultural lands has to be decided by the civil Court, and it is only after the civil Court decides the question whether the lands were agricultural lands that any question of staying the suit for the decision whether the defendants were protected tenants on the authority of the decision in -- 'Dhondi Tukaram v. Dadoo Piraji', (A), arose.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Koli Sona Deva (Deceased By His Heirs ... vs Shah Somalal Mathurdas on 22 August, 1966

7. For that, till such time that any such provision is made, we can usefully follow the procedure suggested in the case referred to hereabove (Dhondi Tukaram Mali v. Dadoo Piraji Adgale 55 Bom. L.R. 663). That appears. to be perfectly a reasonable way of looking at the matter rather than dismissing the suit outright before knowing as to whether the defendants succeed in their plea about their being permanent holders as contemplated in Section 2(4) of the Jagir Abolition Act. The learned Judge has adopted that method and given suitable directions to the trial Court. The jurisdiction to proceed with the trial, in case defendants are not found to be permanent holders of land by the competent authority under Section 2(4) of the Act remains, and it can in that event deal with the other issues involved in the suit and give reliefs in accordance with law. In my opinion therefore, the learned District Judge was perfectly right in passing the order as he did and the appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
Gujarat High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Prithviraj Chunilal Sand vs Hari Ganesh Parkhe on 14 July, 1954

In Dhondi Tukaram v. Dadoo Piraji (1952) 55 Bom. L.R. 663, myself and Mr. Justice Vyas had occasion to consider the effect of the provisions of Sections 70 and 89 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. We have held in the said case that under Section 89(2)(b)(ii) it is only pending proceedings in respect of vested rights that are saved from the operation of the Act and that even in respect of vested rights which are saved, if a suit to enforce them is filed subsequent to the commencement of the Act, the provisions of the Act will apply. But in the present case, there can be no doubt that the legal proceeding to enforce his right was instituted by the landlord when he filed the present suit. All further proceedings between the parties such as an appeal or an execution application are continuation of the suit and arise from the suit. Therefore, in our opinion, there can be no doubt that just as the vested right of the plaintiff to evict the defendant as a trespasser has been saved, so also the legal proceedings instituted by him in 1946 are saved, under the provisions of Section 89(2).
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next