Mumbai Court March 1911 Judgments
Khunni Lal, Vs. Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR427
Ameer Ali, J.1. These appeals, which have been consolidated by an order dated 1st November 1910, arise out of three actions in ejectment, brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, who dismissed the suits by one judgment on the 20th of May 1905. His decision, however, was reversed on appeal by the High Court of Allahabad, which decreed the plaintiffs' claims, on the 23rd of April 1908. The defendants have appealed to His Majesty in Council, and the point for determination is the same in each case.2. The plaintiffs claim as next reversioners to their grandfather (mother's father) Raja Daulat Singh to recover possession of certain properties held by the defendants, on the allegation that the deed of compromise under which the latter purport to derive title is not binding on them. The defendants, on the other hand, are transferees from one Raja Khairati Lall, a grandson by a daughter of Raja Ratan Singh, the father of Daulat Singh, and a party to the comp...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpatsing Himatsing Vs. Bajibhai Mahmad Asmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR292
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The learned District Judge has gone beyond the plain language of Section 29E of the Gujarat Talukdars Act in differing from the Subordinate Judge and holding that the present darkhast of the respondent for execution of his decree is not barred by limitation. The facts are as follows. The respondent obtained his decree for money against the appellant, a Talukdar, on the 22nd of February 1903 and presented his first darkhast for execution on the 8th of December 1903. It is admitted that from the 21st of September 1905 the Talukdari estate of the appellant came by notice to be in the management of the Settlement Officer under Section 29B of the Act; and, as required by the provisions of that section the respondent submitted his claim under the decree in dispute for the consideration of the Officer on the 7th of March 1906. The respondent could not after that proceed with the execution of his decree through the Court without complying with the provisions of Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Lalji Vs. Narotam Raghavji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR237
Seaman, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to enforce partition of what he alleges to be joint family property in the hands of the defendant No. 1, his undivided uncle, and to have an account of all moneys received as joint family property by the said defendant No. 1 from some time, (it has never been very clearly stated by learned Counsel for the plaintiff), before the death of Raghovji, the father of the defendant No. 1 and grandfather of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 who is the widow of Lalji, a predeceased son of Raghovji and the step-mother of the plaintiff, has been impleaded as having a charge upon the whole joint family property for maintenance. In the alternative the plaintiff asks that the suit may be treated as a common administration suit of the estate of the deceased Raghovji.2. It is well to recall some of the incidents which mark the earlier stages of this litigation.3. Within about a month after the death of Raghovji, the plaintiff who is a minor, four years of a...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Bai Rajbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR609
Heaton, J.1. The District Judge has come to the conclusion that no conditions should be stated in the decree, because the written law makes enough provision for the matter. It would, he thinks, be superfluous to prescribe conditions.2. As a result of the discussion in this Court it is, I understand, admitted that Bombay Act VI of 1888 and the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, with the modifications it enacts do apply to the Kasbati village of Chharodi. It is to me quite clear that they do, for Kasbatis are included amongst Talukdars (see the definition in Section 2 of Bombay Act VI of 1888). There was a good deal of discussion as to the meaning of Section 22 of that Act but it is now agreed that it covers the case of this village, so the matter needs no exposition in this judgment. It seems therefore that there is a written law applicable to the case and so far the District Judge is right.3. Now I will deal with the argument that conditions are superfluous. If the precise rel...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Sadoba Halvai Vs. Umbar Adam Memon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR307
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The facts which arise in this second appeal for the determination of the question of limitation argued before us are shortly these. One Govind Sadoba obtained a money decree against one Haroo Hussan. In execution of that money decree the property in dispute was attached by the judgment-credit of. The present respondent-plaintiff intervened and applied to have the attachment raised on the ground that he was owner of the property.2. Upon investigation of the claim under Sections 280 and 281 of the Civil Procedure Code the Court held that the property belonged to the judgment-debtor, not to the present plaintiff. But it also held, that the intervener was entitled to a lien on the property. Accordingly the Court passed an order that the property should be attached and sold, subject to the lien of the intervener. The property was sold subject to the present plaintiif's lien, namely, Rs. 687-11-3, and the defendant purchased it at the Court sale.3. The plaintiif has n...
Tag this Judgment!Srimati Nityamoni Dasi Vs. Madhu Sudan Sen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR419
Macnaghten, J.1. Their Lordships are of opinion that the High Court has power to stay execution, notwithstanding that the appeal, as in this case, has been admitted by special leave of His Majesty in Council. Their Lordships venture to add that the learned Judges of the High Court are in a much better position than the members of this Board to determine in any particular case whether execution ought to be stayed, and if so upon what terms and conditions and to what extent stay of execution ought to be granted.2. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that execution in this case ought to be stayed upon such terms as the High Court may direct....
Tag this Judgment!Bishun Chand Bachhaot Vs. Bijoy Singh Dudhuria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR440
Robson, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Bengal High Court of Judicature which confirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Murshidabad.2. The suit was brought in September 1902 by the respondent Bijoy Singh against the appellant for a declaration that the purchase by the appellant of a house at an auction sale, held under the order of the District Court of Murshidabad, in certain execution proceedings, was invalid on the ground that it was brought about by the fraud of the appellant and the other defendants Tara Chand, the judgment creditor, and Chatrapat Singh, the judgment debtor, in those proceedings.3. The respondent Bijoy Singh was a creditor of Chatrapat Singh and held a decree for the amount of his debt, Rs. 10,000. He applied to the District Court of Murshidabad for execution against Chatrapat's properties and accordingly in September 1900 the house in question was attached and ordered to be sold on the 15th January 1901. The debtor procured a postponement of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Casamally Jairajbhoy Peerbhoy Vs. Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Bart
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR717; 12Ind.Cas.225
Beaman, J.1. I will take the questions material to be answered- in this suit separately and in order of their difficulty and importance.2. First of Limitation. The trustees contend that the plaintiff is now barred by the lapse of time from bringing this suit to have the trust-deed of the 7th of January 1886 set aside. Involved in this question is the application or otherwise of Section 10 of the Limitation Act. Further, whether in the event of there being adverse possession, time commenced to run in the life-time of the settlor Jairajbhoy Peerbhoy.3. It appears clear that it is only in the event of the trusts or some of them being bad, that the question of limitation can arise. For, if the trust-deed in its entirety is good, then of course effect must be given to it irrespective of any question of the lapse of time.4. Next, is to be considered the somewhat more complicated question of how limitation arises when the trust-deed itself is bad and void ab initio or when the deed itself is ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhiwa Jotiba Vs. Devchand Bechar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR280
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The lower appellate Court has held that leave of the Court was not obtained under Section 462 of the old Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882). That being the case, according to the provisions of that section, the compromise could not bind the minor and was avoidable. The Court under circumstances such as those in the present suit, where the minor comes forward to set aside the compromise, has no power to uphold it on the ground that it was for the benefit of the minor or that the minor had derived benefit from it. The legislature has said in so many words that a compromise entered into by the parties to a suit, in which minors are interested, shall not bind the minor unless leave was obtained. See the observations of the Privy Council in Manohar Lal v. Jadu Nath Singh (1906) L.R. 33 IndAp 128 and Virupakshappa v. Skidappa and Basappa ILR (1901) 26 Bom. 109. The compromise must be set aside as not binding the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court having disposed...
Tag this Judgment!The Panjab National Bank Limited Vs. the Mercantile Bank of India Limi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR835; 12Ind.Cas.257
Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs are a limited company carrying on business as bankers in various places in Northern India and , having its principal office at. Lahore. The defendants carry on business as bankers in Bombay.2. In the month of November 1904 the manager of the plaintiffs' head office at Lahore made arrangements for the transfer to the defendants' Bank of the plaintiffs' balance with the Chartered Bank of India to be credited to the account of the plaintiffs with the defendants and to be drawn on by the plaintiffs' branches at Lahore, Karachi, Amritsar, Ferozepore, Rawalpindi, Peshawar and Ooty. At this time the Amritsar branch alone of the plaintiffs' offices had already a current deposit account with the defendants and it was arranged that the amount due at the foot of that account should be transferred to the general account opened in favour of the plaintiffs, so that there should be only one account of the plaintiffs' Bank with the defendants.The plaintiffs used to su...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »