Skip to content


Desai Malabhai Bapubhai Vs. Keshavbhai Kuberbhai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1888)ILR12Bom419
AppellantDesai Malabhai Bapubhai
RespondentKeshavbhai Kuberbhai
Excerpt:
mamlatdars' courts act (bombay act iii of 1876), section 4, clause ii - jurisdiction to grant an injunction--possession--physical possession--disturbance of possession. - west, j.1. the plaintiff keshavbhai had not, so far as the evidence shows, possession of land within the meaning of section 4, clause 2, of the mamlatdars' act in such wise that he could claim an injunction from the mamlatdar. when this clause is compared with the first of the same section, we may gather, from the omission from it of the words 'profits of the same' (that is of lands), that only an interruption of physical possession or enjoyment was intended to be removed by the injunction for which the clause provides. such possession the plaintiff keshavbhai had not acquired; nor, so far as the evidence shows, is it clear that he had ever acquired a complete constructive possession through an attornment of tenants, who having previously paid rent to divali and so created a de facto.....
Judgment:

West, J.

1. The plaintiff Keshavbhai had not, so far as the evidence shows, possession of land within the meaning of Section 4, Clause 2, of the Mamlatdars' Act in such wise that he could claim an injunction from the Mamlatdar. When this clause is compared with the first of the same section, we may gather, from the omission from it of the words 'profits of the same' (that is of lands), that only an interruption of physical possession or enjoyment was intended to be removed by the injunction for which the clause provides. Such possession the plaintiff Keshavbhai had not acquired; nor, so far as the evidence shows, is it clear that he had ever acquired a complete constructive possession through an attornment of tenants, who having previously paid rent to Divali and so created a de facto possession as of a land-lord in her would thus complete a transfer from her to Keshavbhai.

2. We, therefore, make the rule absolute, and reverse the Mamlatdar's order. Costs of these proceedings to be borne by the opponent.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //