Mumbai Court December 1902 Judgments
SharfudIn Valad TajudIn and ors., Heirs of the Deceased TajudIn Vs. Go ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom294
Batty, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, as purchaser of the equity of redemption, sued to redeem and recover possession of certain thikans originally mortgaged with possession by the plaintiff's vendors to the ancestors of defendants 2-6, who, on 12th April, 1893, had by Exhibit 55 transferred their rights to defendants 7--10, for Rs. 1,275.2. The defendants contended that plaintiff could not recover possession without redeeming three bonds (Exhibits 57, 58 and 59) as well as the original mortgage of 1837 (Exhibit 56). The Court of first instance and the lower Appellate Court held that this contention was correct, but while the Court first mentioned limited the interest payable by applying the rule of damdupat the lower Appellate Court decided that full interest on the three bonds was payable by plaintiff at the rates in those bonds specified. Exhibit 55, the registered instrument whereby defendants 2-6 transferred their rights to defendants 7--10, recited that the property in question...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharam Shankar and ors. Vs. Ramchandra Babu Mohire
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom181
Chandavarkar, J.1. In our view of the law the Subordinate Judge was right in looking at the document as it stands in determining the question whether it is sufficiently stamped and in treating it as properly stamped as a bill of exchange: see Ramen Chetty v. Mahomed Ghouse (1889) 16 Cal. 432; Royal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham . A defect if any, in the Stamp Act cannot be cured by construing a document to be other than what it is or purports (1894) 2 Q.B. 715 to be.2. The Revenue Commissioner should be informed that in making a reference to this Court under the Stamp Act the original document should be sent with the reference. In this case the original document has not been sent and we have had to look at a certified copy....
Tag this Judgment!Dhondiram BIn Laxmon Vs. Taba Savadan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom214
L.H. Jenkins, K.C.I.E. C.J.1. To this item of Rs. 700 the further objection is urged that it is barred, as the suit must be deemed to have been instituted on the 18th September, 1900. The plaintiff on the other hand contends that the suit was instituted on the 14th September, 1900, and that consequently the plea of limitation does not apply. This contest arises from the fact, that the plaint when presented on the 14th of September was written upon paper insufficiently stamped and the requisite stamp was not supplied until the 18th September, 1900. The question therefore arises, whether the suit was instituted when the plaint was first presented, or when the further requisite stamp was Supplied.2. Section 4 of the Limitation Act provides that every suit instituted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor should be, dismissed, and in the explanation to the section it is said that the suit is instituted in ordinary cases when the plaint is presented to the proper officer. This e...
Tag this Judgment!Bala Vs. Shiva and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom176
Chandavarkar, J.1. The plaintiff, Bala bin Pandu Devkar, brought this suit to redeem the lands in dispute, alleging that their owner, Rama Mahadu Surve, had mortgaged them to Govind Lakshman BhoBle, father of defendant No. 1 and grandfather of defendants 2 and 3, about forty-five years ago, for Rs. 100; that the period fixed for redemption was ten years; and that the mortgagor Rama's heirs had sold the equity of redemption to the plaintiff.2. There were twelve defendants brought on the record. Of them defendants 4, 7, 8 and 9 contended that the property had come into the possession of their ancestor Dhonda Balkoji for Rs. 500 in A.D. 1788 and that since then their family had been in possession. They denied the mortgage sued upon and pleaded limitation. Defendant No. 12 claimed two of the lands in suit under a mortgage from defendant No. 1 and his father. The other defendants raised no defence.3. Defendants Nos. 1 to 10 and defendant No. 13 are descended from one ancestor. The Subordina...
Tag this Judgment!Byramji Jamsetji Vs. Chunilal Lalchand and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom172
Aston, J.1. The plaint house belonged to one Sitabai, who mort gaged it to respondents in April, 1891. The respondents on 31st May, 1898, obtained, in Suit No. 612 of 1897, a decree against their mortgagor Sitabai for sale of the mortgaged house, and at the Court-sale held in execution of the said decree they purchased the right, title and interest of Sitabai in the said house.2. Meanwhile during the pendency of the respondent's mortgage suit No. 612 of 1897 against Sitabai, the appellant had at a Court-sale held in execution of a money decree obtained by a creditor against Sitabai, purchased the right, title and interest of Sitabai in the said house as existing at the date of the attachment of the said house in the creditor's suit in which the money decree was passed.3. There is no express finding by the lower Courts whether this attachment in the money suit was placed soon after, or just before, the institution of the mortgage suit No. 612, but it is not in dispute that the attachmen...
Tag this Judgment!Jehangir M. Cursetji Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom122
Tyabji, J.1. This suit was filed by Mr. Jehangir Manekji Cursetji against the Secretary of State for India in Council on the 6th November, 1900, complaining of a Resolution of the Government of Bombay, set forth in the plaint, and praying that the plaintiff may be awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as damages sustained by the wrongful acts of Government, and that the said Resolution dated the 6th November, 1899, may be ordered to be set aside, and for costs of the suit.2. The plaintiff, at the time of the Resolution complained of, was a Government servant in the Provincial Civil Service of the Bombay Presidency, and, according to the plaint, had served Government for twenty-five years. Prior to this Resolution ha was serving as a fourth grade Deputy Collector, and was in charge of the treasury. The Resolution, which is dated the 6th November, 1899, is based upon a, memorandum from the Commissioner, C.D., commenting on the conduct of the plaintiff in respect of certain of the plaintiff's act...
Tag this Judgment!Tribhovan Chunilal Vs. the Ahmedabad Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom144
Chandavarkar, J.1. The finding of the lower appellate Court in this case is that the plaintiff has erected the balcony in dispute contrary to an order issued by the Municipality under a bye-law framed under the Bombay District Municipal Amendment Act (Bombay Act II of 1884).2. It is contended (or the plaintiff in this second appeal that as the balcony abuts on a private, not a public, street, the Municipality has no right to interfere with it. It is admitted for the Municipality that the building of which the balcony is a part abuts on a private street. The balcony is a projection of the building and must be taken to be a part of the building itself. 'A projection from a building means a part of a building projecting or jutting out; it means a prominence extending from building in the sense of coming out from the building as part of the building:' per Bruce, J., in Hull v. London County Council (1901) 1 K.B. 580 . The only question, therefore, is whether the order was within the jurisd...
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Raghunath Phadke Vs. Ramchandra Kashi Patkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom170
Chandavarkar, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit on a kabulayat dated 30th June, 1890, to recover rent from the defendant as his tenant for the years 1897-98, 1898-99, and 1899-1900, in respect of his (the plaintiff's) one-tenth share in a khoti takshim. The kabulayat sued on was for live years.2. The defendant pleaded in answer that the period of the kabulayat having expired on the 30th of June, 1895, the relation of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and himself ceased after that date. That would be so, no doubt, according to the decisions in Kantheppa Raddi v. Sheshappa (1897) 22 Bom. 893 and Chandri v. Daji Bhau (1900) 24 Bom. 504 where it was held that where a tenancy for a fixed period expires, and the tenant continues in possession on such expiry his possession is only by sufferance, and no relation of landlord and tenant can after that subsist in the absence of anything from which a new tenancy can be inferred.3. Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act provides tha...
Tag this Judgment!Balabai Legal Representative of Deceased Mahadev Narayan Vs. Ganesh Sh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom105
Batty, J.1. This suit was instituted on 30th November, 1897, by one Mahadev Narayan, to recover possession of certain moveable and immoveable property as the estate of his deceased cousin Moreshwar, whose heir Mahadev Narayan Alleged himself to be. The defendants, it was alleged, wrongfully retained possession of that estate.2. Mahadev Narayan, the original plaintiff, died during the pendency of the suit, viz., on 27th February 1899. One Balabai, his sister's daughter, proceeded with the suit and filed a Vakalatnama on 5th June 1899. The first defendant did not object to Balabai'S representative character till the 8th August 1899, but on that day put in a written statement in which he refused to admit that Balabai was the nearest heir to the deceased plaintiff. He advanced, however, no arguments at the time on the point.3. On the 4th July, 1900, the first defendant was examined and appears to have disputed the right of Balabai to represent the deceased plaintiff Mahadev, though it woul...
Tag this Judgment!Nandubai Ayal Mangaldas Bhanji Vs. Gau BIn Halia Bagal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom97
Chandavarkar, J.1. My answer to the first question is that the paper containing the havala is a conveyance and must be stamped as such under the Indian Stamp Act (II of 1899.)2. 'An order for payment of money, though expressed to be payable out of a definite debt or fund, must be properly stamped as a bill of exchange, and if not stamped at the time of issue, cannot be stamped afterwards. But an order for payment out of a debt accruing due under a contract, as for goods sold, or for work and labour, or the like, is an assignment of a debt which must be stamped' as a transfer of property' Leake on Contracts, 3rd Edition, page 1005, citing Buck v. Robson (1878) 3 Q.B.D. 686 and Ex parte Shellard (1873) L.R. 17 Eq. 109. In Ex parte Shellard a letter from a creditor to his debtor for payment of money to a creditor of the former was held liable to be stamped as a bill of exchange. But in Buck v. Robson, Cook-burn, C.J., and Mellor, J., differed from that view and held such a letter to be an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »