NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1594 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.891 OF 2010 Mustafa v. Zuleikha William Hutchinson & Ors.
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 11. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. There is no dispute that the property is belonged to the deceased. The case of the present appellant was that he is tenant of that property. Though this position was disputed by the plaintiff, the learned…
Judgment
Mr.P.K.Samdhani, Sr.Advocate with C.D.Patel & Lalan Gupta i/b. M/s.Dhruve Liladhar & Co., for Appellant. Mr.Gaurav Joshi with Ms.Snehal Phene & Ms.Rajani Divkar i/b. M/s.Little & Co., for Respondent no. 1. Mr.V.R.Tripathi, for Respondent no.2. Respondent no.3 in person present. --- 2 apl215-216-11 CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED: 11th April,2011 P.C.:
#1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. There is no dispute that the property is belonged to the deceased. The case of the present appellant was that he is tenant of that property. Though this position was disputed by the plaintiff, the learned Single Judge has recorded a clear finding on this issue. However, for protecting the interest of everybody involved, the learned Single Judge appointed Receiver and the Receiver is directed not to disturb the possession of the appellant, but the appellant is required to pay only rent to the Receiver. When the learned Single Judge observed in his judgment in paragraph 15 that the Receiver should permit the present appellant who was first defendant in the suit, to continue in occupation of the property, what the learned Single Judge 3 apl215-216-11 means is that the Receiver should not disturb his possession. We do not find any substance in the appeals. They are dismissed. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.