Mumbai Court February 1908 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.
Parag Naran Vs. Chodra Chhatia Jakhlo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR494
Chandavarkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the appellant to recover possession on the strength of a sale-deed alleged to have been executed by the respondent in his favour. In his written statement the respondent denied the execution of the deed. In the Court of first instance there were only two issues raised. The first of them was:-Are the sale-deed and leases of the plaintiff as set up in the plaint proved? The second was :- What relief should be awarded to the plaintiff in respect of the possession and the profits (rent as well as mesne profits), sought?2. It will be observed from these issues that the question on which the parties went to trial was-whether the sale-deed on which the plaintiff sued to recover possession, and the rent-notes alleged to have been executed by the respondent in consequence of the sale-deed were genuine documents or not? In other words : Whether they had been executed by the respondent Evidence having been led upon that issue, the Subordinate Judge fo...
Emperor Vs. Gopalrao Venkatesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR285
1. The lower Court of appeal observes that all the witnesses agree in stating that the accused 1 and 2 were not only on the land but they even rushed at the complainant to assault him in co-operation with accused 5 and 6, and that as regards accused 5, he is evidently the chief actor and aggressor. And from that evidence the Court has inferred the petitioner's guilt. That Court finds that the manner in which the petitioner entered on the land in company with eight persons disguised as his tenants or labourers and over-awed the complainant and bullied him and his workmen and tried to expel them shows, that his object was to acquire possession of the land from the complainant by insult and annoyance.2. That undoubtedly is an inference of fact which there is evidence to substantiate. We see no error of law to justify us in disturbing that finding. It may be that accused No. 5 has an interest in the property as joint owner, and that he is entitled to possession. And it may be contended on ...
Sheikh Mahomed Vs. JamaluddIn Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR385
Chandavarkar, J.1. The suit, which has given rise to this second appeal, was for redemption of two mortgages, one of 1830 and the other of 1835 and was brought by the appellant after the right to redeem had prima, facie become barred under the statute of limitation. To bring the claim within the period prescribed by that statute the appellant relied upon certain statements contained in a document (Exhibit 88), as amounting to an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 of the Limitation Act. The question of law now is whether Exhibit 88 contains such an acknowledgment.2. It is necessary to state shortly the nature and purport of that Exhibit, so far as they are material for the purposes of that question. In 1882 the Settlement Officer had to determine under the Khoti Act the tenure on which the lands in dispute were held by their occupants, who were also mortgagors under the mortgages now concerned. Those occupants asserted their title to the lands as dhar karis and alleged that...
Magniram Khupchand Vs. Laxminarayan Rampratap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR281
Chandavarkar, J.1. The suit was brought by the appellant for a declaration that a certain promissory note executed by him in favour of the respondent agreeing to pay the sum of Rs. 3,556 had been fraudulently and by undue influence obtained from him, and was good only to the extent of such sum as might be found due on taking accounts between the parties. The respondent in his written statement denied the allegations of fraud and undue influence, and of want of free consent on the part of the appellant in the execution of the promissory note. Issues were raised on the question of fraud, undue influence, and free consent, and the Subordinate Judge who tried the suit held the allegations as to them proved. Accordingly he reopened the accounts between the parties and passed a decree in favour of the appellant.2. On appeal by the respondent the learned District Judge has held the pleas of fraud, undue influence, and want of free consent not proved. And he has come to the conclusion that the...
Durbar Khachar Odha Ala Vs. Khachar Harsur Oghad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR297
Knight, J.1. In 1878 a decree was obtained against the father of the present respondent. Certain Talukdari lands of his were placed under attachment, and execution was thereafter effected through the instrumentality of the Collector, who retained the management of the lands in his hands and paid the decree-holder the profits accruing therefrom.2. In 1901 the judgment-debtor died, the decree being still unsatisfied, and the estate passed to his son, the respondent, by survivorship. The decree-holder caused his name to be brought upon the record under Section 234, Civil Procedure Code, as the legal representative of the judgment-debtor, and sought to proceed with the execution. But the respondent objected, inter alia, on the ground that the obligation embodied in the decree was one which did not bind him. This objection he was entitled to raise under Section 244: see the similar case of Umed Hathising v. Goman Bhaiji ILR (1895) 20 Bom. 3853. After delays arising from remands and other ca...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›