Mumbai Court July 1910 Judgments
The Talukdari Settlement Officer Vs. Chhaganlal Dwarkadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR903
Basil Scott, C.J.1. On the 8th of August 1899 a decree was passed at a suit of the opponent Chhaganlal against the Thakore of Kerda, in Suit No. 60 of 1899, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad.2. The defendant had died the day previous to the decree, At the time of his death he was entitled to revenues from three sources: Toda Giras allowance of Rs. 1,400, per annum; the income of two Talukdari villages; and the income of certain Wanta lands in seven different Government villages.3. On the 20th of August 1899 the whole of the estate of the deceased defendant was taken under attachment by Government Officers purporting to act under Section 144 of the Land Revenue Code (Bombay Act V of 1879), and the Talukdari Settlement Officer, who is the appellant in this case, claims to have been in possession of the estate from that date.4. On the 19th of June 1905 a sum of Rs. 8,516, standing in the books of the Government Kacheri of Anand to the credit of the estate of t...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Rango Dandekar Vs. Bhaskar Gopal Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR795
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought in 1904 by the respondents for the redemption of a mortgage, dated the 18th of June, 1867. The terms of the mortgage were that interest should run at 20 per cent, on the principal sum, Rs. 299, that compound interest should be charged, that the mortgagee should go into possession and enjoy the rents and profits in lieu of principal and interest, and that the mortgagor should redeem on payment of what might be found due on taking accounts. The Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit in the first instance, raised three issues, none of which covered the question whether on account of the stipulation as to compound interest or any other circumstances surrounding the transaction the mortgage was an unconscionable bargain, calling for equitable relief. But in the course of his judgment he observed that ' on account of the high rate of interest with a stipulation to charge interest on interest the burden of redemption ...
Tag this Judgment!Baluram Ramkissen Vs. Bai Pannabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR323
Robertson, J.1. In this case a question has arisen whether the service of the summons upon the first defendant is sufficiently proved.2. It appears the summons was sent by registered post addressed to the first defendant at Navalgarh in the State of Jaipur, and purports to have been sent in accordance with the provisions of Order V, Rule 25, of the new Code. The cover has been returned with an endorsement in the vernacular which has been translated as follows:--'Refused to take. The handwriting of Chunilal, postman.' Now, the question as to whether this is a good service or not is not altogether without authority. In Jagannath Brakhbhau v. J. E. Sassoon ILR (1893) 18 Bom. 606, a decision of Sir Charles Sargent and Mr. Justice Bayley, it was held, under similar circumstances, where a postal packet was returned endorsed 'refused,' that the service was bad, and the Small Cause Court in accepting it as good service had acted with material irregularity. At first sight that case appears to b...
Tag this Judgment!Chintaman Vyankatrao Ghadge Vs. Ramchandra Vyankatrao Ghadge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR694
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. This appeal was filed at first in the form of an application for leave to appeal in forma pauper is, from the decree passed on the 19th of February 1908, by the Subordinate Judge, First Class, at Satara, in Civil Suit No. 354 of 1907. The application, presented on the 13th April 1908, was beyond time, having been made more than thirty days after the period prescribed by the Limitation Act, and the appellant, a minor, by his guardian prayed that the delay might be excused. The application for the excusing of delay came on for ex parte hearing before a Division Court on the 2nd of October 1908 and it was allowed. But it having been brought to the Court's notice that it had no jurisdiction to excuse delay, it cancelled the order on that ground on the 20th of November 1908. An appeal against that order, presented under the Letters Patent, was allowed on the ground that, the applicant being a minor, Section 7 of the Limitation Act of 1877, Applied and the case w...
Tag this Judgment!Bohra Thakur Das Vs. the Collector of Aligarh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR1005
Ameer Ali, J.1. These two appeals, which have been consolidated by an Order of His Majesty in Council, arise out of a suit for redemption brought by the appellants in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh in the United Provinces.2. The property in suit, a six biswa share of Mauza Agrana, was, with an eleven biswa share of Mauza Kachaura, mortgaged in January, 1870, by a Mr. William L. Gardiner to one Bakhshi Nand Kishore, since deceased, for a sum of Rs. 5,000. Under the terms of the mortgage the mortgagee was to have possession of the mortgaged properties, realise the rents and profits and pay therewith the Government revenue which was separately assessed on the two shares. Out of the balance he was to retain Rs. 600 for the interest on the loan and pay the mortgagor a yearly sum of Rs. 2,400 as malikana or proprietor's allowance. In view of settlement proceedings in progress at the time, the deed further provided that 'if at the recent settlement the government revenue, which...
Tag this Judgment!Chimna Sadashiv Vs. Sada Barka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR811
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs who were mortgagees of a house and land situated at Mudi and had obtained a decree for sale of the same under the mortgage and purchased it at the Court-sale. Their complaint was that the defendant No. 2, who was the brother of the mortgagors, had obstructed them in taking possession.2. It was found by the first Court that the mortgage had been passed by the two elder brothers in the family of the mortgagors a year after their father's death for a past debt due to the mortgagee and or cash advanced for the marriage of the present respondent.3. It was held in the first Court that the consideration for the mortgage was a family debt for which every one of the brothers in the joint family would be liable. Upon the authority of Sakharam v. Devji (1898) 23 Bom. 372 the Subordinate Judge held that the 2nd defendant was sufficiently represented by his brothers, the mortejors, who were proved to have been managers of the undivi...
Tag this Judgment!Ladha Ebrahim and Co. Vs. the Assistant Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR839
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In the year 1906-.the Government of Bombay took action to acquire by the machinery of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Part of Surway No. 29 of Nisbat Manjre in the Poona Collectorate with the Buildings thereon.2. The land, the subject of the acquisition, was registered in the Revenue records as Maharki Vatan. It was in the occupation of Messrs. Ladha Ebrahim and Co., to whom the buildings erected upon it admittedly belonged.3. On the 19th of March the Assistant Collector passed an award whereby he awarded to Messrs. Ladha Ebrahim & Co., for the buildings Rs. 10,777 and to the Mahars collectively, who claimed to be interested as Watandars, Rs. 4,508 for the land. He directed that the latter sum should be credited in the Government Treasury in the names of the Mahar claimants and that the interest accruing thereon should be paid to them by the Mamlatdar. There is nothing to indicate that this was under any arrangement come to with the Mahar claimants under Clause...
Tag this Judgment!Pestonji Framji Mistri Vs. Framji Bejanji Billimoria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR863
Beaman, J.1. When this case came on for trial the first question raised was whether the defendant was entitled to lay before the Court evidence of facts alleged to have been in the testator's mind, and, therefore, necessary to be known to the Court before it could truly apply the language used by the testator in the second clause of the will. This was, of course, strenuously opposed by Mr. Jinnah for the plaintiff, who, like most counsel of experience, is always most insistent on a legal technicality most ingenious, and I may say persuasive, in proportion as he feels that if this ground fails him his case is lost. Nevertheless, after giving the matter my most anxious consideration during the whole of his argument and the exhaustive and able reply to it by Mr. Kanga, I am still unable to free my mind from the logical compulsion of the technicality upon which Mr. Jinnah has taken his stand.2. In this country the construction of wills must be governed, I think, by the terms of Section 62,...
Tag this Judgment!Gajanan Vinayak Vs. Waman Sham Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR881
Beaman, J.1. The only question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to have accounts for more than six years before suit, and the answer to that depends upon whether he comes within the meaning of Section 10 of the Limitation Act. 2. First, it is to be considered whether the addition to Section 10 the Act in force when the suit was brought governs the conduct of this suit. I am referred in that connection to an old decision in Reg. v. Dorabji Balabhai (1874) 11 Bom. H.C. 117, in which the Judges observe that the law of limitation being a law of procedure regulates all proceedings had under it. That is merely a general statement with reference to what was uppermost in the Judges' mind at the time, a case very different from this. I doubt in the first place whether it is strictly accurate to say that the law of limitation is always a law of procedure, that is to say, a purely adjective law, for, amongst its other consequences, it certainly has the creation of rights by prescription and i...
Tag this Judgment!Bapuji Nusserwanji Vatchaghandy and anr. Vs. Sorabji Ardeshir Vatchagh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.301
Davar, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit, Bapuji Nasserwanji Vatchaghandy and his brother Rustomji Nasserwanji Vatchaghandy, apply for Probate of a Will made on the 16th of December 1895 by their maternal aunt Bai Jaiji, daughter of Maneckji Sorabji Vatchaghandy and the younger sister of their mother Bai Meherbai. Jaiji died on the 30th May 1909. The Will is written out by Mr. Keykhusru Sorabji Engineer, a retired Government Officer, who served Government in various capacities for many years and eventually was invalidated and retired on pension in 1895. The Will is admittedly signed by Jaiji in her own handwriting and is attested by the writer of the Will, Dr. Engineer and Colonel Boyd, a Justice of the Peace and a Member of the Indian Medical Service who was connected with Bombay for many years.2. Against their petition for probate, the defendant Sorabji Ardesar Vatchaghandy has filed a caveat. Sorabji is the son of a brother of Jaiji and Meherbai. In his affidavit in support of the ca...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »