Mumbai Court March 1906 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shankerappa Irappa Vs. Kotrappa Channappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR516
Batty, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to set aside a sale of certain lands and to recover possession of those lands on the ground that on his having given security for the appearance of the judgment-debtors in another suit, proceedings were taken without his knowledge, resulting in the attachment and sale of the lands in question.2. The lands admittedly are situate within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Gadag, and not within the local limits of the ordinary jurisdiction of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar, in whose Court this suit was instituted.3. The First Class Subordinate Judge decided the case in the plaintiffs favour.4. On appeal the District Judge set aside the decree of the Court of first instance, and holding that as the case was not one falling within the special jurisdiction of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar, and was not within the local limits of his ordinary jurisdiction, it had been presented in the wrong Court, and thereon dir...
Pandu Laxman More Vs. Balu Mahadu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR557
Russell, J.1. In this case one Pandu Laxman, the appel. lantherein, got a decree in Suit No. 517 of 1898, in the Subordinate Judge's Court, against the defendant Babaji and others to recover possession of certain lands and profits and mesne profits. Defendant appealed (No. 296 of 1901) from the above decree and applied to the Thana District Court for stay of execution. That Court on the 31st January 1902, directed a notice to issue to the plaintiff and in the meantime ordered execution to stay on the applicant, the judgment-debtor furnishing security. On the 19th March 1902, Ba'a Mahadu, the present respondent, stool security to the judgment-debtor, and on the 21st March the Subordinate Judge reported to the District Court that execution had been stayed on the respondent having furnished security.2. Apparently after this Balu applied to have his security-bond cancelled, and on the 4th April 1902 the Subordinate Judge reported that fact to the District Court and sought for further order...
Bhagwansing Daulatsing Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1906
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR571
Batty, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover the possession of certain sites of which he had been in possession and from which he was dispossessed in September 1893. The suit having been brought in 1904, no bar would rise under Article 142, Schedule 2, of the Limitation Act, and the lower Court has found that the suit was within time. But the Judge states that the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that he was in twelve years peaceful possession prior to the date of his ejectment. Possession is in itself title in the absence of proof displacing the presumption that arises from possession. Doe dem Garter v. Barnard (1849) 13 Q.B. Rep. 945, on p. 953, Asher v. Whitlock (1865) L.R. 1 Q. B. 1., Pemraj v. Narayan I L R (1882) 6 Bom. 215, followed in Krishnarao v. Vasudev (1884) L.R.R. 8 Bom. 371, dissenting from Dadabhai v. The Sub-Collector of Broach (1870) 7 B.H.C. 82, Gangaram v. The Secretary of State for India, in Council (1895) L.R. R. 20 Bom. 798, Hanmantrao v. The Secretary...
Doddappa Tippanna Vs. Somappa Ningappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR550
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The mortgage to the plaintiff was in 1896, and thereby Ningappa, his mortgagor, purported to mortgage in the plaintiff's favour the entirety of Survey Nos. 153, 156 and 299 and a house.2. In fact Ningappa, the mortgagor, was not exclusively entitled to those pieces of land. He was merely jointly interested in them with his brother Tippanna. Therefore all that the mortgagee took was his mortgagor's interest in those pieces of land and house.3. In 1897 a partition suit was commenced with the result that a consent decree was passed under which Survey No. 156 amoiety of 199 and the whole of the house were allotted to Ningappa's branch of the family, and Survey No. 153, and the other moiety of 199 to the brother's branch. The mortgagee the present plaintiff, was not a party to those proceedings and he was not bound by the result thereof.4. He has brought this suit to recover the balance due on his mortgage.5. But the decree passed in his favour has been in...
ismail Mussajee Mookerdum Vs. Hafiz Boo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR379
Arthur Wilson, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises related to certain transactions on the part of Khaja Boo, a Mahometan woman, who died in the year 1900. at an advanced age, said to have been ninety years. 2. The transactions in question took place in 1889. Khaja Boo resided at Rander near Surat, in the Bombay Presidency; but she and her family seem to have had connections of long standing with Rangoon. She had, at the time of the events which have to be considered, one son, the present plaintiff, appellant, and one daughter, the present defendant, respondent. With her son, whose antecedents were not good, she was on terms of bitter hostility, and much litigation had taken place between them. The daughter was a married woman, whose husband resided in Rangoon; but she herself was living with her mother at Rander.3. Khaja Boo owned a house in Rander, and two properties in Rangoon. One of the latter was the fifth class Lot No. 27 in Block 0 ii, the other an undivided half share...
Lakshman Sadashiv Vs. Gopal Appaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR367
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an application for the execution of a decree against a surety under Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code.2.In order to accede to the argument advanced before us by the respondents in support of the decree passed in their favour in the lower Court we must read in Section 253 the word ' before' as being equivalent to 'before or after.'3. There are decisions of this Court, and in particular I refer to that in Venkapa, Naik v. Baslingapa ILR (1887) 2 Bom.411, where it has been determined that certain words in that section are superfluous. But I do not feel at liberty to introduce into the section the words necessary for the success of the respondents' argument. The case of Venkapa Naik v.Baslingapa ILR (1887) 2 Bom. 411, has been relied on both before us and in the lower Court. It was in effect there said that the words ' in an original suit' were superfluous. How far that opinion was justified I need not discuss, but it is er...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›