Mumbai Court March 1909 Judgments
Fatmabai Vs. Hajee Cassam Jusab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.422
ORDERRussell, J.1. This suit was filed by the two widows of one Hajee Suleman Hajee Cassam against several defendants, and claims amongst other things administration of the estate of the said deceased, and that the rights of the deceased and defendants Nos. 1 to 4 may be ascertained and declared, and for maintenance. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have put in a lengthy written statement raising a number of contentions. Stated very shortly the effect of the written statement is this that there is nothing due to the estate of the deceased.2. In the course of the conduct of the case the usual order for inspection was made; and when the defendants' attorneys found that the plaintiffs' attorneys were copying a large number of documents which had been referred to in their affidavit of documents, they raised objection. They said that copies of documents verabtim et literatim were unnecessary and that time was being wasted; and they declined to give any further inspection, Thereupon, the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!The Hitvardhak Cotton Mills Co., Limited Vs. Sorabji Dinshaw Karaka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.432
ORDER1. The transactions comprised in the document which, is the subject of this reference consist of a transfer of mortgage by S.D. Karaka to the Ahmedabad Fine Spinning and Weaving Co. and an agreement inter alia that the Company shall lend money at the request of S.D. Karaka for making improvements, additions and repairs to the building and machinery of the Hitvardhak Cotton Mills up to an unascertained though ascertain-able amount and also such money as may be required for working the said Mills.2. It has been argued on behalf of the Revenue Authorities that the agreement to lend money for repairs and improvements is a bond within the moaning of the Indian Stamp Act 1899, Section 2 (5) (b).3. By that clause it is provided that ' bond ' shall include any instrument attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer whereby a person obliges himself to pay money to another.4. In our opinion an agreement to lend money does not create an obligation to pay money within the moaning ...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand Paramchand Vs. Fulbai Harichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.748
1. By an agreement between the parties to this suit the plaintiff promised to pay the sum of Rs. 1,800 to the first defendant as consideration for the first defendant's promise to marry his niece to plaintiff's son. But before the marriage could take place the plaintiff's son died of plague. Under the agreement, however, the plaintiff had, before her son's death, paid to the first defendant a sum which the lower Courts have ascertained to be Rs. 750. The question is whether, having regard to the character of the agreement between the parties, the plaintiff is entitled to recover this sum from the first defendant. Both the Courts below have decreed the claim, and the first defendant now appeals from that decree.2. The only ground upon which the decree is attacked has reference to the character of the agreement between the parties. It is contended that that agreement, being an agreement by way of marriage-brokerage, is void as opposed to public policy and, therefore, under Section 65 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Moolibai Vs. Chunilal Pitambar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.485
ORDERRussell, J.1. The plaint in this suit was filed on the 18th January 1909 and the plaintiff is the daughter of one Ambaram Motichand who left property of a very considerable value, and the defendant is the executor of his Will. He is described in the plaint as a law-tout; bat whether or not he is so I do not know. The suit is for the construction of the Will in various particulars and also for an account.2. On the 1st March 1909, Mr. Sethna was appointed Receiver, which I apprehend implies that it would be the duty of the executor to hand over all the property of the deceased in his hands to the Receiver, and also an order was made restaining the defendant from dealing with the property of the deceased. It appears from the proceedings, which I have gone through, that the order for Receiver could not be served upon the defendant until the 19th of March 1909 and on the 20th of March the following notice was written by the plaintiff's attorneys to the defendant's attorneys:Please take...
Tag this Judgment!Nathubhai Brijlal Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.513
Chandavarkar, J.1. The point which arises in this case is in my opinion a very simple one, and all those arguments which have been addressed to us by Mr. Shah in support of his application vanish, if, having regard to the provisions of Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, we bear in mind what may be called the equities of the case. Section 145 requires a Magistrate, when he has found that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists, to pass an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied, and requiring the parties concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader, within a time to be fixed by such Magistrate, and to put in written statements of their respective claims as respects the fact of actual possession of the subject of dispute. Clause 3 of Section 145 further requires that a copy of the order shall be served in manner provided by this Code for the service of a summons upon such person or persons as the Magistrate may dire...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Kishordas Vs. Bai Harkha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.530
1. On the 3rd of February 1893 a possessory mortgage of certain Bhagdari land was executed by Govind Khodabhai and his brother in favour of the plaintiff. On the same day Govind passed a tenancy agreement to the plaintiff whereby he took the land as lessee for five years. Further agreements of a similar nature were subsequently executed by Govind in the plaintiff's favour, the last being of the 18th September 1902 for one year. After the expiry of that year Govind continued in possession of the land until his death in June 1905. On his death his widow the second defendant cultivated the land on behalf of herself and the first defendant her minor son. This suit has been brought by the plaintiff to recover the rent of the land for two years namely 1904-5 and 1905-6. Now objection has been taken that rent accruing due in the lifetime of Govind is not claimable against the defendants personally in this suit. The plaintiffs come here in special appeal having failed in both the lower Courts....
Tag this Judgment!Anandi Ram Pai Vs. Hari Suba Pai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.745
1. The sole question argued in this second appeal is whether, under the Hindu Law, governed by the Mitakshara School, the adoptive father or the adoptive mother is the preferential heir to an adopted son. According to the Mitak-shara, when a son dies, leaving his parents as his heirs, the mother succeeds to son's estate before the father. Both the Courts below have, however, held in the present case that the rule in question applies only to the estate of a natural-bron but not to that of an adopted son dying.2. The learned Subordinate Judge says:The reasons which give a preference to a mother by birth over a father by birth do not, I think, apply in the case of an adoptive mother. By many commentators, a mother by birth is preferred to the father by birth upon considerations derived from a comparison of the respective degrees in which mother and father share in the composition of the son, while the Mitak-shara prefers her on the ground of propinquity.3. Vijnaneshwara puts the preferenc...
Tag this Judgment!Kevaldas Kuberdas Vs. Nagindas Nathubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.429
1. It is foundry the Court below that the sale to the appellant was for Rs. 400, of which Rs. 300 went to satisfy an old mortgage. As to the balance Rs. 100, there is a recital in the sale-deed that that amount was taken as paid to the vendor in satisfaction of a debt due from him to the purchaser. The Courts below have found that no such debt is proved to have been due; and that circumstance has led the Courts to hold in law that the sale is partially void '. That view of the Courts below is clearly wrong. The fact that part of the consideration money for a sale has not been paid does not make it void wholly or partially. All that the vendor is legally entitled to in that case is a lien on the property sold to the extent of the amount not paid: see Umedmal Motiram v. Davu 2 B. 547 and Baijnath Singh v. Paltu 30 A. 125. In the present case assuming the finding of the Courts below to be that Rs. 100 were not paid, all that the vendor would be entitled to would be a lien on the property ...
Tag this Judgment!P.R. and Co. Vs. Bhagvan Das Chaturbhuj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1909
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.475
Basil Scott, C.J.1. On the 3rd of September, 1907, the defendant agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs 440 cases of Turkey Red goods on the terms of a, written contract. Disputes arose as to whether the goods tendered by the plaintiffs were equal to sample and eventually the defendant agreed to take the goods subject to certain allowances. The defendant afterwards failed to take delivery or to pay for the goods and the plaintiffs brought this suit to recover the amount payable under the contract less the said allowances amounting with interest to the date of suit to Rs. 1,11,573-4-9.2. The learned Judge of the lower Court found that the property in the goods had passed to the defendant and that he was bound to take delivery and pay for the goods but being of opinion that a suit for damages for breach of contract in not accepting the goods was the only remedy open to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs not having proved damages based upon the difference between the contract rate and the ...
Tag this Judgment!Jijibhai Laldas Vs. Nagji Gulab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.761
1. On the 23rd of May 1904, the plaintiff who was in possession of certain Bhagdari land entered into an agreement with the defendant that the defendant should hold the land for 199 years on lease in consideration of a lump sum of Rs. 299 paid in advance and agreed that should any obstruction or hindrance be caused to the defendant's enjoyment of the land or should the same be taken away from his possession, then he had authority to recover his money, from the plaintiff personally.2. The defendant in pursuance of the agreement entered into possession of the land. After two years the plaintiff changed his mind and coming to the conclusion that he Would like to take his land back again, sued the defendant for possession on the ground that the so-called lease was an unlawful alienation prohibited by the terms of Section 3 of the Bhagdari Act (Bombay Act) V of 1862.3. It has been held by the lower appellate Court that the lease is an unlawful alienation prohibited by the Act, and in that c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »