Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (2.48 seconds)
Rajesab Wallad Imamsab Bagwan vs Harishchandra Honnawar on 15 February, 1954 cites

Dhondi Tukaram vs Dadoo Piraji And Ors. on 8 December, 1952

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 18 - Cited by 34 - Full Document
1