Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Mulchand Kesaji vs Shiddappa Gurubasappa on 8 February, 1946

Dundappa Virupaxappa Kallolgi And Ors. vs Annaji Vardaji And Ors. on 17 January, 1952

In a later judgment this view was questioned, and therefore a full bench had to be constituted in -- 'Mulchand Kesaji v. Shiddappa', 48 Bom L R 571 (FB) which re-affirmed the view taken by this Court in -- Chhotalal v. Nabibhai', Although Sir Lawrence Jenkins had not given expression to the principle which underlay his decision, the full bench clearly enunciated the principle and the principle was that you must give to Section 73 a liberal interpretation consistently with the object which the Legislature intended to carry out by enacting that section. In the judgment of my brother Gajendragad-kar J. the learned Judge points out how impossible it is to give in all cases a completely literal interpretation to the expression "the same judgment-debtor" used in Section 73. As he points out, there is no doubt that before Section 73 can be applied it must also be shown that the same identical judgment-debtor occupies the same legal character in all the decrees. Therefore, if a strict interpretation was called for then a decree against the same judgment-debtor holding different legal capacities would still be a decree falling under Section 73.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - B P Sinha - Full Document

Ranchhod Ramnarayan vs Manubai And Ors. on 16 February, 1953

I do not see why in giving effect to an equitable doctrine of part performance embodied in Section 53A, T. P. Act we should not be guided by similar considerations for putting a liberal construction on the words "claiming under him". The spirit of these authorities, -- Subrahmanyam v. Subba Rao (E)' and -- 'Mulchand Kesaji v. Shiddappa (G)' would support us in our view that we should put a liberal construction on the words "claiming under him" in a case where a Hindu widow's act lawfully binds the estate of her deceased husband and is, therefore, binding on the reversioner also.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Laxminarayan Devastan And Ors. vs Khanderao Yeshwantrao And Ors. on 20 October, 1953

The full bench took the view that in order to ascertain whether the two decrees may be regarded as passed against "the same judgment-debtor" the decisive test Is to ascertain the characters occupied by the judgment-debtors in the two cases and not merely the identity of names of the judgment-debtors in the two decrees In -- 'Mulchand Kesaji's case (P)"' one suit was against a manager and other members of the joint family and there was another suit against the manager alone, and money decrees were passed in both the suits. It was held that as the same estate was represented, the decrees were against the same judgment-debtor and rateable distribution could be ordered.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1