Mumbai Court February 1903 Judgments
Narayan Bhagwan Gandhi Vs. Shamrao Laxuman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom246
Crowe, J.1. The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the present suit is barred by the provisions of Sections 42 and 43 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiff sues on a certificate of sale, dated the 12th November, 1883, under which he purchased the right, title and interest of Rajaram and Sitaram Haibat in certain Khoti and dhara lands situated in the villages of Shiravali, Vasapa, Ravatale and Vinhere. Exhibits 89 and 90 are the certified copies of the decrees passed in two suits--No. 518 of 1892 brought by plaintiff for the possession of certain lands situate in Vasape against defendants 4, 9, 10, 11 in the present suit and No. 519 of 1891 for the possession of the khoti share of the village Ravatale against defendant 5 in the present suit. The present suit is to recover separate possession by partition of a one-third share of the lands situate in the villages of Shiravali, Vasape, Ravatale and Vinhere mentioned in the sale certificate, together with mesne ...
Tag this Judgment!Thakore Fatesingji Dipsangji Vs. Bamanji Ardeshir Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom335
Batty, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, Thakore of Kanjeri and other villages of Panch Mahals, sued to obtain a declaration that the defendant holds certain lands as his yearly tenant and also to recover possession thereof. The facts undisputed in this case are as follows. The plaintiff was born on 8th December, 1874. His father died in 1877. The zillah of Panch Mahals was at that time a scheduled district. It had been transferred to the British Government in 1861, Bombay Gazetteer, 253. The Minors' Act XX of 1864 was not in force in that district in 1877--vide Section 5 and Schedule 3 of the Laws Local Extent Act, 1874. It came into force on 1st May, 1885, under the Panch Mahals Laws Act (VII of 1885) when the district ceased to be a scheduled district. No statutory provision for the appointment of a guardian existing, the Collector, on the lata Thakore's death, reported the fact, aid asked and obtained the sanction of Government to the attachment and management by his office of the e...
Tag this Judgment!Sagun Balkrishnaset Kanekar and anr. Vs. Kaji Hussen Valad Kaji Ali an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom325
Batty, J.1. In this case the plaint as described by the Court of first instance alleged that certain land, therein referred be was the service inam property of a mosque; that the rights of service and of managing the estate belonged be the family of the plaintiffs and of defendant 3 their father, and of defendants 4 and 5; that the defendants 3, 4 and 5 had ceased to perform service, and that the plaintiffs had rendered the service in their stead and that the defendants 1 and 2 had enjoyed, through the defendants 3, 4 and 5, a part of the profits of the share be which the plaintiffs were entitled.2. The defendants 3, 4 and 5, members of the plaintiffs' family, did not contest the claim.3. The defendants 1 and 2, who are Hindus, admittedly have been in possession of the land in suit since 1863 under mortgages both from defendant 3, the father of plaintiff, and from the father of defendants 4 and 5 and from defendants 4 and 5 themselves, and in 1875 purchased at a Court-sale the equity o...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Manjaya and anr. Vs. Shri Ramchandra Devasthan, Moktesars Ganp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom242
L.H. Jenkins, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sue to recover possession of a piece of land and also rent, and they have been met with the plea that the land is held by the defendants under a mulgeni lease granted by Krishna Swami, and that all rent has been discharged.2. It has, however, been held by the lower Appellate Court that the leased land belonged to the temple of which Krishna Swami was the manager, and that the lease is not now binding on the plaintiffs, the present managers. In so holding, the defendants' plea of limitation has been determined to be of no avail. Assuming, then, that the lease was invalid, the only question before us is whether the defendants' plea of limitation is sound.3. The lease is dated 1845 and purports to create a mulgeni interest at a rent of 8 mooras of rice. In 1854 there was litigation regarding the rent of the leased laud brought by the then manager against a predecessor of the defendant. The defendant in that litigation asserted the mulgeni character...
Tag this Judgment!Jairamdas Ganeshdas and anr. Vs. Zamonlal Kissorilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom232
Russell, J.1. The plaintiffs herein, Jairamdas Ganeshdas and another, sue the defendant Zamonlal Kissorilal for damages for the non-acceptance of one hundred bales of cotton and ask to restrain the defendant from proceeding with Suit No. 21205 of l902 in the Bombay Small Causes Court. Paragraph 6 of the plaint herein sets out the nature of that suit. (His Lordship read the paragraph and continued :)2. Mr. Inverarity for the defendant herein has raised an important question, viz., that this Court has no jurisdiction to restrain the defendant from carrying on his suit in the Small Cause Court. I take it to be an important question, for points of this kind are repeatedly raised in this Court and all questions involving jurisdiction are important.3. The plaintiffs in their affidavit in support of the rule, which has not been replied to, state that they were induced by a threat on the defendant's part not to file this suit, and so the defendant was enabled to file his suit in the Small Caus...
Tag this Judgment!Natha Kupaji and ors. Vs. Maganchand Motiji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom209
Chandavarkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the appellants (plaintiffs) against the three respondents (defendants) to establish their right to attach and sell certain lands in execution of a decree obtained by them on the 28th of September, 1899, against the estate of one Byramji Kaverji, deceased, and against his brother Manekji Kuverji.2. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the claim on the ground (inter alia) that they had purchased the property on the 16th of September, 1898, from defendant 3, who had obtained letters of administration to the estate of the deceased Byramji. Defendant 3 admitted the sale to defendants 1 and 2, and pleaded that as the cause of action against him was different from that against defendants 1 and 2, he had been improperly made a party to the suit.3. The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit decreed the plaintiffs' claim, but in appeal the District Judge of Surat has rejected it.4. It is necessary to state at the outset certain facts, which are either admitted...
Tag this Judgment!Gell Vs. Taja Noora
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom199
Batty, J.1. The questions in the appeal are whether the Commissioner of Police, in refusing to grant license to the petitioner under Section 6 of Bombay Act VI of 1863, exercised the discretion vested in him by that section. If he did so, then unquestionably the Courts could not interfere: Attorney General v. Great Western Railway Co. (1877) 4 Ch. D. 735; Reg. v. Collins (1876) 2 Q.B.D. 30; Khando v. Appaji (1877) 2 Bom. 370 and cases therein cited. But the ground of refusal should show that it was a ground to which the power extended: Queen v. Sykes (1875) 1 Q.B.D 52; Ex parte Smith. (1878) 1 Q.B.D. 374 In this case the power given is to refuse a license only when the Commissioner considers that the conveyance for which it is required is insufficiently found or otherwise unfit for the conveyance of the public, or that the applicant is open to certain objections. This clearly calls for the exercise of discretion in each particular case, and 'an exercise of the power in the fetters of s...
Tag this Judgment!Balvant Babaji Dhondge Vs. Hirachand Gulabchand Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1903
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom217
Batty, J.1. The lower Appellate Court has stated the facts of this case as follows:The plaintiff in this case had obtained a decree against all the five brothers; his darkhast was against five brothers. The proclamation of sale announced that the complete interest in the house, subject to the mortgage, was to be sold, but that, when this bailiff made the sale yad he recorded that only the right, title and interest of Yashvant (the eldest brother) was being sold. The confirmation order repeats the terms of the sale yad; so does the sale yad and the tabs (possession) yad. The plaintiff was put in possession of the whole house. There was a miscellaneous application by three of the brothers objecting to the result of the sale, but this was objected. The defendant then sold (sic) the right, title and interest of his debtors (the mother and one brother) and took possession of the house.2. On these facts the lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiff was bound by the misdescription in the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›