Mumbai Court August 1910 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.
Sakrappa Lingappa Hebsur Vs. Shivappa Basappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR984
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The appellant must succeed upon the point argued in second appeal as to the validity of the award. The learned District Judge has found that there was no mala fides in the reference to the arbitration but he holds that the award made by the arbitrators does not bind the 1st respondent (plaintiff) because of the inequality of the benefit he derived from it and the erroneous view of the difficult point of Hindu Law which led the arbitrators to make the award. In other words, the learned Judge has declined to treat the award as valid, not because of the circumstances as they existed at its date, but as they transpired some years after it had been passed by the arbitrators. That, however, is not the test by which the validity of an award is to be determined. The law applicable to this case is very clearly laid down by the Privy Council in Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Singh (1839) 2 M.I.A. 181, where their Lordships say, dealing with the compromise there in di...
Dagdu Sadu Nahavi Vs. Nama Salu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR972
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The learned Judge, for the reasons stated in, the appendix to his judgment, is of opinion that a person who wishes to set aside an ostensible sale-deed can do so on proving that a representation was made to him at the time of execution that it would not be enforced as a sale-deed, and he accordingly states as the first question which arises for decision in the appeal before him : Did the defendant at the time of the execution of the sale-deed represent to the plaintiff that the sale-deed would not be enforced as such In other words, did the defendant promise the plaintiff that the sale-deed would not be enforced as such Stated in this form the question propounded by the learned Judge is whether or not there was a contemporaneous agreement between the parties inconsistent with the written document executed by them.2. We think it is clear upon the authorities binding upon us that no evidence of such an agreement, or promise, or representation can be admitted. The...
Vasudeo Atmaram Joshi Vs. Eknath Balkrishna Thite
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR956
N.G. Chandararkar, Kt. J.1. The question of law for determination in this appeal is, whether the suit brought by the father of the appellants, since deceased, to establish his right to attach and sell the property In dispute in execution of a money decree is, for the purposes of limitation, governed by Article 142 or Article 144 of Schedule I to the Limitation Act.2. That question turns upon the following facts, which are not in dispute.3. The father of the appellants, having obtained a decree for money against the third respondent, Ramchandra Namdeo, and his brother Dnaneshwar Namdeo, deceased, represented by his son Kondi, in Suit No. 234 of 1900, attached the lands in dispute in execution as belonging to his judgment-debtors.4. The first respondent, Eknath Balkrishna, thereupon intervened and applied to have the attachment raised on the ground that the land had belonged originally to one Vithal, who had sold it to the second respondent, and that the latter had mortgaged it to the in...
In Re: Govind Pandurang Kamat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR936
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question referred to us is whether the two documents dated respectively the 1st of September and the 2nd of September 1909 are instruments of partition or release.2. They are instruments of partition if they are instruments whereby co-owners of any property divide or agree to divide any property in severalty.3. By the first document Anant Pandurang agreed to take from his brother as his share in the family property moveable and immoveable, Rs. 4000 in cash and certain securities for money in the form of bonds securing debts due to the family. The document was in the form of a release executed in favour of Govind Pandurang, the eldest brother and manager of the family. The effect of the document was to divide the property of the three co-owning brothers between Anant on the one hand and Govind and Waman on the other. Govind took a certain share of the family assets not converted into cash and we therefore think that the document passed by him amounts to an i...
Purshotumdas Ramgopal Vs. Ramgopal Hiralal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR852
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question arises in this case at the outset whether any appeal will lie.2. The appeal is preferred against an opinion expressed by the learned Chamber Judge upon a special case stated to him, purporting to be stated in the matter of an arbitration between the plaintiff and the defendants in suit No. 781 of 1908, pursuant to a Consent Judge's Order of the 16th July 1909 and in the matter of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, and an arbitration between Purshotumdas Ramgopal, and Ramgopal Hiralal, Badrinarayan Ramgopal and Keshavdeo Ramgopal, pursuant to an agreement between them dated the 9th July 1909. The parties to this last-named agreement are the parties to Suit No. 781.3. The special case states that the suit was instituted for partition of the properties other than the immoveable properties situate outside the jurisdiction of the Court belonging to the joint family consisting of the plaintiff and the defendants. On the 9th of July 1909 two agreements wer...
Shavaksha Ruttonji Bomonji Vs. Hugh Hogarth and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR886
Beaman, J.1. I am strongly inclined to the view expressed by the Calcutta High Court in Motee Chand Baboo v. Radha Madhub Chund Baboo (1856) 2 S W.H. M. 34 that applications for review of judgment. cannot be entertained where there has been no contest, a(sic) where the plaintiff has obtained an ex parte decree. There a(sic) special provisions governing applications to have an ex parte decree set aside, and a special period of limitation; as there are other special provisions and a different period of limitation for applications for review of judgment. Section 5 of the Limitation Act enables a Court to extend the period allowed for making an application for review of judgment, but confers no such power in respect to an application to have an ex parte decree set aside. The law allows an ex parte decree to be set aside for two reasons only:-(i) Want of service, (2) Inability for a sufficient cause of the defendant to be present. The reasons for allowing a review of judgment are wholly dif...
The Talukdari Settlement Officer Vs. Umiashankar Narsiram Pandya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR837
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. Section 79A of the Land Revenue Code, as amended by Act VI of 1888 (the Gujarat Talukdars Act), confers on the Collector the power to evict summarily any person who is found in ' wrongful possession ' of a taluk-dari land or estate. It is only in cases of wrongful possession that the power can be exercised, and, though for the exercise of the power the Collector has to form his own opinion and decide whether in any particular case the possession is wrongful, there is no provision in either the Land Revenue Code (Bom. Act V of 1879) or the Gujarat Talukdars Act (Bom. Act VI of 1888) which gives finality to the Collector's order of eviction so as to exclude the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to decide that the person evicted by that order was in rightful occupation. In the present case the respondent was put into possession by a competent Court of law after an adjudication that as against the Talukdar he (the respondent) was entitled to the land in dispute. If...
Shri Sitaram Pandit Vs. Shri Harihar Pandit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR910
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The appellant is the son of Chimna Maharaj, deceased, and the respondents are the sons of Nana Maharaj, also deceased. This Nans. Maharaj was the natural born son of Chimna Maharaj but was given in adoption on the 24th of April, 1879, to Bhavanibai, widow of one Bala Maharaj. Nana Maharaj made a gift of certain lands, belonging to him in virtue of the adoption, to the appellant on the seth of March 1888. The respondents brought the suit, which has led to this appeal, to recover possession of those lands, on the ground that they were part of the joint ancestral property of their father and themselves, of which it was not competent for the father to make a gift.2. The claim was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the gift had been made in consideration of the benefit conferred on Nana Maharaj by the fact of his having been given in adoption by Chimna Maharaj, father of the appellant, into the family to which the lands belonged, and also of the trouble whi...
Tatyarao Venkatrao Vase Vs. Puttappa Kotrappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR940
N.G. Chandavarbar, J.1. On the issue raised by me for determination by the lower appellate Court, that Court has found that the mortgagee had no notice of the plaintiff's existence when the previous suit on the mortgage was brought against the plaintiff's father. That finding is assailed by the learned pleader for the plaintiff (appellant) on the ground that the registration of the partition deed executed after the mortgage between the plaintiff and his father was in law notice of the plaintiff's existence, because that deed had been registered before the suit. It is no doubt a well-established law of this Court that registration is notice to all subsequent purchasers or incumbrancers of the same property : see the Full Bench case of Lakshmandas, Sampchand v. Dasrat ILR(1880) 6 Bom. 168. But no authority of our Court has been cited, and 1 am not aware of any, which extends the doctrine to others besides subsequent purchasers or incumbrancers.2. A ruling of the Allahabad High Court (Jan...
Jeevanbai Vs. Manordas Lachmandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR992
Macleod J.1. On the 29th May 1890 the 8th defendant mortgaged his interest in certain property at Dadar to Manekchand Hirachand and Panachand Hirachand to secure the repayment of Rs. 1,000 and interest.2. On the 18th July 1894 the 8th defendant mortgaged his interest in certain property at Naigaum to Kashinath Vishvanath to secure the repayment of Rs. 2,000 and interest.3. On 17th February 1895 a further charge for Rs. 1,000 was endorsed on the last mentioned mortgage.4. On the 20th July 1895 Manekchand Hirachand and Panachand Hirachand assigned their interest in the mortgage of the Dadar property to Girdhardas Ghanshamdas.5. On the 25 October 1895 Kashinath Vishvanzfth also assigned his interest in the mortgage and further charge on the Naigaum property to Girdhardas Ghanshamdas.6. In these assignments Girdhardas acted as the nominee of Vithaldas Ramdas.7. On the 28th June 1897 Vithaldas Ramdas mortgaged his interests in the above mentioned mortgages and further charge together with h...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »