Mumbai Court January 1906 Judgments
Bai Jaiji Vs. N.C. Macleod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR122
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The only question arising on this appeal is whether the defendant Ardeshir Cursetji Powalla acquired under his father's will an interest, which vested on his insolvedency in the Official Assignee.2. The testator by the 10th clause of his will directed that all the rest residue and remainder of his property should be divided into four equal shares; that one such share should be given to each of his sons, the 3rd and 4th defendants: and that another share should be held in trust to pay the income there of to his son Pallonji Cursetji Powalla until he should attain the age of 21 years, and on his attaining that age in trust to pay the share to him absolutely.3. By the 11th clause of his will the testator directed as follows:- 11. As regards the remaining one equal fourth share of the said residue I direct that if at the time the said residue is divisible my son Ardeshir shall have no debts due by him or any liabilities likely to result in a debt on debts...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavrao Bhagvant Vs. Raya Pandu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR287
Russell, J.1. In this case the lower appellate Court and the first Court have held that the deed in question, Exhibit 24, is a mortgage deed and not a deed of out-and-out sale by the plaintiff to the defendant. The deed itself which is dated 1st July 1889 runs as follows : -Given in writing to the party purchasing (namely) Ra: Ra : Keshavrao Bhagvant Shikarkhanc, residing at Kasbe Supe in the Taluka of Bhimthadi, by occupation an agriculturist,-by the party selling (namely) Pandu bin Gundaji and Raya and Shambhu bin Panduji Patil Bhadole, residing at Majre Bhadolyachi Vadi at Kasbe Supe in the Taluka of Bhimthadi, the occupation of the three persons being that of agriculture. (We) give in writing this sale-deed for a reason as follows :-From among us Pandu passed in writing to you two mortgage-deeds with possession,(one)for rupees two hundred and seventy one on the 12th of November in the year 1885 and (the other) for rupees one hundred on the 29th of July in the year 1886 in respect o...
Tag this Judgment!The Surat City Municipality Vs. Chunilal Maneklal Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR209
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The suit admittedly is now to be treated as one only against the Municipality. It seeks a declaration and an injunction.2. A declaration can only be sought in a suit against any person denying or interested to deny the title of the plaintiff to a particular character or right.3. But the Municipality neither denies nor is interested to deny the character or right which the plaintiff seeks to establish. It is the Officer mentioned in Rule 13 that is concerned with that question, and over him the Municipality has no control. Therefore the suit for a declaration fails.4. The claim for an injunction too cannot be sustained. The Municipality has done no wrong and is threatening to do no wrong ; it only proposes to proceed in accordance with the Act and the Rules so far as they relate to it. Therefore no ground is established for an injunction.5. And as a declaration and an injunction are the only reliefs sought against the Municipality, and inasmuch as the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kashinath Shamji Vs. Chimnaji Sadashiv
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR268
Scott, J.1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff, a minor, by his mother, as his next friend, to have a consent decree passed in Suit No. 20 of 1904 set aside and to have the estate of his grandfather Khandoji Ranoji administered.2. Khandoji Ranoji died on the 31st of May 1892 leaving two sons, Shamji (the plaintiffs' father) and Mahadev. Mahadev died on the 4th of June 1902 at the age of 22 without issue but leaving a widow.3. Shamji is still alive.4. By his will Khandoji gave directions regarding the disposal of the income and corpus of two immoveable properties in Bombay mentioned in clauses 12 and 13 of his will.5. In 1896 Suit 69 of 1896 was filed by Shamji against the executor and executrix of Khandoji's will and against Mahadev for construction of the will.6. Fulton J. held the immoveable property was not to be divided till after the death of Shamji but that as to the balance of income if Mahadev attained twenty-one he or his representatives should receive 3/4 thereof during Sh...
Tag this Judgment!Minalal Shadiram Vs. Kharsetji Jiwaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR296
Aston, J.1. On 4th June 1893 Kharsetji Jiwaji (defendant) signed a Ruzu acknowledging Rs. 11,534-15-0 to be due by him to the shop of Bakhatram Nanuram of which Minalal Shadiram (plaintiff) is the present owner.2. On the 19th June 1894 Kharsetji paid Rs. 400 cash, and a Hundi for Rs. 600, and for the balance Rs. 10,534-15-0 an instalment bond payable by yearly instalments of Rs. 1,000 with interest at 6 per cent on overdue instalments.3. The Hundi was dishonoured in 1895 and the firm sued Kharsetji for Rs. 600 plus Rs. 45 interest in Suit No. 249 of 1895. The latter pleaded want of consideration for the Hundi and further said that the Ruzu aforesaid had been passed in ignorance of the true state of the accounts and because the facts had been concealed and misrepresented. A Commissioner appointed in Suit No. 249 of 1895 reported on examination of the shop accounts that the debt really due on 4th June 1893 was Rs. 3,016-3-0 and not Rs. 11,534-15-0 as stated in the Ruzu, in other words, t...
Tag this Judgment!Nusserwanji Cowasji Vs. Laxman Bhikaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR82
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The rule of damdupat does not (in ray opinion) divest rights that have accrued ; it merely limits accruing rights.2. If therefore the interest claimed was not at its accrual barred by the rule of damdupat, but actually became a debt due to the plaintiff; the subsequent payment of the principal sum in respect of which it accrued would not cancel or avoid the debt of interest.3. To hold otherwise would lead to the result that if A owed B Rs. 1000 for principal and Rs. 1000 for interest A by paying B Rs. 1000 and intimating that the payment was to be applied to the discharge of the principal, would deprive his creditor of his right to the Rs. 1000 due to him in respect of interest.4. Reliance has been placed in the reference on the decision in Dagdusa Shevakdas v. Ramchandra (1895) I.L.R. 20 Bom. 611, but in the principle there laid down there is nothing opposed to the view I have expressed.5. Mr. Justice Jardine, it is true, says 'I have had the advanta...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›