Mumbai Court September 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.
Hari Govind Joshi Vs. Ramchandra Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR873
Aston, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs, the present appellants, sued to recover what they have called their one-half share in the land described in the plaint, together with mesne profits, alleging that it was sold in execution of plaintiffs' Decree No. 665 of 1874 by Darkhast No. 1054 of 1875, and was bought by defendant 3's father both for the plaintiffs and defendants jointly, and that it was subsequently enjoyed jointly by them. The defendants are in actual possession of the land in suit. The defendants denied that the land was bought jointly, or, that the plaintiffs had ever received any of the profits of the land.2. The first Court decided that the agreement to purchase the plaint land in common was illegal, and that on that ground the suit was not maintainable, and further that the suit was barred by Section 317, Civil Procedure Code, and on these findings dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs.3. On appeal, the Assistant Judge, Thana, decided that the suit was not barred by...
Ashidbai Vs. Abdulla Haji Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR758
Chandavarkar, J.1. Though the plaintiff's suit for partition has been dismissed by the judgment finally delivered by this Court on the 9th of August, defendants Nos. 6 to 11 contend that they are entitled to a declaration that they have a share in the property which is the subject-matter of the suit and to have that share allotted to them by partition in this suit. In support of that contention reliance is placed on the decision in Sheikh Khoorshed Hossein and Ors. v. Nubbee Fatma and Ors. ILR (1877) Cal. 551, where it was held that a decree for partition, when properly drawn up, is in favour of each shareholder, whether he is plaintiff or defendant, in the suit. That decision is, however, inapplicable here, because here the question is whether, the plaintiff who brought the suit for partition having failed to establish her right to partition, any of the defendants can nevertheless claim partition upon the ground that such defendant has a share in the property. There are cases both in ...
Francis Ghosal Vs. Gabri Ghosal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR770
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. The contesting litigants before us are Native Christians, members of a family, who ancestors were converted from the Hindu religion.2. The question in controversy is whether the appellants are entitled to share in certain properties, acquired after the death of a common ancestor, Lalu Ghosal, whose name appears at the head of the genealogical table contained in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. In advancing this claim the appellants contend that the family, notwithstanding the conversion of its members to Christianity, continued to be joint in the sense in which a Hindu family may be so described, and retained the legal status and incidents which belonged to it prior to the conversion.3. It is on this contention and the legal consequences it involves that the appellants mainly rest their claim to the after acquired property.4. The status of the family, therefore, is a matter of prime importance and essential to the right decision of the suit, bu...
Krishna Bai Vs. Hari Govind Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR813
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench is, ' whether when a plaintiff is seeking to enforce by original suit a right to forfeiture contained in a consent decree whereby the status of landlord and tenant is established between the plaintiff and defendant, the Court in the exercise of its equitable jurisdiction is precluded from granting such relief against forfeiture as it might have granted, had the status arisen from contract or custom.'2. This should be supplemented by the statement that the consent decree was passed under Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code in accordance with a lawful agreement recorded under that section.3. The reasons for the reference are set forth in the refer, ring judgment in which are enumerated the material authorities. The first case mentioned is Shirekuli Timapa Hegda v. Mahablya ILR (1886) 10 Bom. 436 in which the plaintiff, relying on a right of re-entry on failure to pay rent, sought to eject the defendant. The D...
Krishnabai, Widow of Harbhat Vs. Hari Govind and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR31Bom15
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The question referred to this Full Bench is, 'whether when a plaintiff is seeking to enforce by original suit a right to forfeiture contained in a consent decree whereby the status of landlord and tenant is established between the plaintiff and defendant, the Court in the exorcise of its equitable jurisdiction is precluded from granting such relief against forfeiture as it might have granted, had the status arisen from contract or custom.'2. This should he supplemented by the statement that the consent decree was passed under Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code in accordance with a lawful agreement recorded under that section.3. The reasons for the reference are set forth in the referring judgment in which are enumerated the material authorities. The first case mentioned is Shirekuli Timapa Hegda v. Mahablya (1886) 10 Bom.435 in which the plaintiff, relying on a right of re-entry on failure to pay rent, sought to eject the defendant. The District Judge howe...
Ramappa Dareppa Vs. Bharma Rama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR842
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. This is an application to the High Court under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The petitioners' complaint is that the lower Court has wrongly rejected an application made by them for a review of judgment under Section 623 of the Code of Civil Procedure.3. The ground on which the lower Court rejected thatapplication, was that an appeal had been preferred. 4. To this it is answered that the appeal was dismissed under a. 551.5. It appears to us that it was none the less preferred on that account. Indeed it was only because it was preferred that it was dismissed.6. Then Mr. Patkar has contended that the line of decisions commencing with Nanabhai Vallabhdas v. Nathabhai Haribhai(1872) 9 Bom. H.C. A.C.J. 89 and going up to Pandu v. Devji ILR (1883) 7 Bom. 287 assists him.7. Those cases decide that, where there has been an appeal, there still may be a review of the judgment of the Court against whose decree the appeal was preferred, provided t...
Pannalal Vrajlal Vs. Kalu Nhanu Vani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR798
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. This is a reference to the High Court under Section 617 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. By that section it is provided that 'if before or on the hearing of a suit...in which the decree is final,...any question of law arises, on which the Court trying the suit entertains reasonable doubt, the Court may draw up a statement of the facts of the case and the point on which doubt is entertained and refer such statement with its own opinion on the point for the decision of the High Court.'3. The suit out of which this reference arises is one in which the decree will be final, and so a reference can be made.4. It is now necessary to see what the point is on which the learned Judge entertains a reasonable doubt.5. This is to be found at page 5 of his statement. He there says 'I have now raised the question whether it is not obligatory on me to make an enquiry into the history and merits of the past dealings between the parties that led to the execution of the ...
Sakharam Bhaskar Bapat Vs. Padmakar Mahadev Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR757
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. The report of the Bailiff verified by his affidavit does not satisfy us that the serving officer was entitled to affix a copy of the summons on the outer door of the house in which the respondent ordinarily resided, as provided by Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. There is merely a statement that the respondent could not be found. But it does not appear that any effort was made to find him, or that even enquiry was made of his son who was found as to where the respondent was.3. The serving officer did not carry out the requirement of the Civil Procedure Code, and we must therefore send down the notice for proper service. In this connection we refer to Rajendra Nath Sanyal v. Jan Meah ILR (1898) 26 Cal. 101 and Sakina v. Gauri Sahai ILR (1902) 24 All. 302....
Ambalal Ganpatram Vs. Pascol Bastav Seel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR973
Heaton, J.1. In this case both the lower Courts arrived at the conclusion that it was not established that the promissory note sued on had been executed by the defendants. That is purely a question of fact, and though the judgments of both the Courts are brief, and deal specifically only with certain points, yet I must presume that both the Judges considered all the evidence and all the circumstances in the case. It would, it seems to me, be improper to make any other presumption. But it is represented in argument, in support of the rule, that the pleader, who conducted the case for the plaintiff in the lower Court, was misled by the fact that the promissory-note was admitted in evidence. He apparently thought that, to admit in evidence was equivalent to finding that the document admitted was genuine.' Admitting ' in evidence is a mechanical and formal proceeding. When all the evidence is recorded and when it is all considered, it is in the judgment that the Judge decides) whether a do...
Hafizaboo Vs. Mahomed Casam Moorad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR734
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The only question on this appeal is as to the meaning of Section 44(b) of the Civil Procedure Code. The suit is brought against the executors of Issub Esmail and in it two causes of action have been united. One is in respect of property in the possession of the defendants to which the plaintiff lays claim by right of inheritance to Ebrahim Suleman and of Amaboo the wife of Mahomed Suleman. The other is in respect of moneys alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff to issue and invested by him on her behalf.2. The defendants object that there is thus a misjoinder of causes of action having regard to the provisions of Section 44(b) of the Civil Procedure Code.3. The objection came before Batty J. who rightly considered himself bound by the decision in Ashabai v. Haji Tyeb Haji Rahimtulla ILR (1882) 6 Bom. 390 to hold in the defendants' favour.4. But as that was the decision of a single Judge we are not so bound.5. The argument for the defendants is tha...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »