Mumbai Court July 1912 Judgments
Shivram Narsingrao Vs. Mahadev Narayan Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR797; 17Ind.Cas.170
Chandavarkar, J.1. The Courts below have held that the land in dispute ceased to be vatan after the Collector had levied the full amount of assessment on it and assigned that amount as remuneration for service. But there is no provision in the Vatan Act or any other law to support that view. It has been held by this Court that a vatan continues in that character even when the Gordon Settlement has been applied to it and service has ceased to be demanded as a consequence of that settlement: Appaji Bapuji v. Keshav Shamrav ILR (1890) 15 Bom. 13 and Bhau P. v. Ramchandrarao M. ILR (1895) 20 Bom. 423. In the present case it is conceded by the learned pleader for the respondent, and indeed the Courts below have found, that the land in dispute had been vatan before in 1872 it was sold by the Court to the defendant in execution of a decree against the person who was then the holder of the vatan. The Collector levied the full assessment and assigned it for remuneration for service because of t...
Tag this Judgment!The Rajnagar Sping., Weavg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Manilal Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR919; 17Ind.Cas.640
Chandavarkar, J.1. The District Judge has taken the correct view of Article 29 of the Articles of Association of this Company. The Article provides, ' The fees for the transfer of shares will be charged at the rate of eight annas per each share. And if nothing is due to the Company by the share-holder who sells his share or transfers it to another and if the transferee is a proper person, the share will be transferred to the name of the transferee.' One condition, therefore, of the transfer is that the transferee should be a proper person. The Article is silent on the question who is to decide whether the transferee is a proper person-the Directors or the Company. It is unnecessary to decide who is to determine that question before the transfer is registered. There cannot be any the slightest doubt that the Court has ultimately jurisdiction to decide whether the transferee has a right under that Article to get his name registered or not, and for that purpose to determine whether he is ...
Tag this Judgment!Babaji Akoba Kasar Vs. Dattu Laxman Kasar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR923; 17Ind.Cas.642
Chandavarkar, J.1. The suit, which has led to this second appeal, was brought by the appellant for partition of property, alleged to be joint and ancestral, and the only question in appeal is whether the claim is barred under Article 127 of Schedule II to the Limitation Act.2. It is found as a fact by both the Courts below that the appellant has been excluded to his knowledge by his co-parceners from enjoyment of the joint property since 1890, i.e., for more than twelve years before the present suit instituted in 1907.3. For the appellant it is contended that the period of exclusion from 1890 to 1898 must be eliminated from the question of limitation, because of a decree for partition passed in 1898 in favour of one of the co-parceners. In the judgment on which that decree was passed it was found that the property now in dispute was joint and partible. That finding, it is urged, was an adjudication in favour of each party to that suit that he was a co-parcener entitled to a share ; and...
Tag this Judgment!Shamu Patter Vs. Abdul Kadir Ravuthan and Abdul Rajak Sahib
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1034
Ameer Ali, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from certain judgments and decrees of the High Court of Madras, dated the 28th of January 1908, affirming the decisions of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar at Palghat; and the sole question for determination in both cases turns upon the meaning to be attached to the word ' attested' in Section 59 of the Indian Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), the first clause of which provides that 'where the principal money secured is one hundred rupees or upwards, a mortgage can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses.'2. The appellant Shamu Patter, as the representative of one Appu, deceased, brought a suit on the 18th of July 1902 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Malabar, to enforce a mortgage alleged to have been executed in favour of Appu by the Ravuthan defendants. The other defendants to Patter's action were certain attaching creditors of the Ravuthans,...
Tag this Judgment!Sidhanath Dhonddev Garud Vs. Ganesh Govind Garud
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR916; 17Ind.Cas.637
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the Subordinate Judge has given a decision upon six issues in the case, one of them being an issue of misjoinder, another limitation, and the third of jurisdiction, and after finding on these issues directed that the parties should be allowed to adduce evidence on the remaining issues, which were issues of accounts. He was then asked to draw up a preliminary decree in accordance with his findings. This, however, he declined to do.2. We are of opinion that in so declining he committed a material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. The decision of the issues to which I have referred conclusively determined the rights of parties regarding some matters in controversy so far as his Court was concerned, the decision on each of those issues, therefore, was sufficient to constitute a preliminary decree.3. The defendant has a right to appeal from a decision of the Court amounting to a preliminary decree, but he can only appeal if the decree is...
Tag this Judgment!Parmanandas Keshavji Vs. Parbhudas Gangadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR630
Beaman, J.1. For the purposes of safeguarding the executors, it is necessary to determine upon such evidence as has been laid before me who is the heir or are the heirs of the deceased Ramdas. The evidence in support of the pedigree is not very convincing but considering the remoteness of the relationship, I think it may be accepted.2. On the record here, there are three claimants to be the heirs of Ramdas, viz., Parvatibai, Fulkorebai and Bai Mani. Had Bai Mani been the heir, a difficulty would have arisen, because the evidence shows that she has two sisters (not upon the record) who would have been equally entitled with herself. But the relationship established and shown upon the pedigree makes it clear that Bai Mani and her two sisters, claiming through the uncle of Amrat, the mother of Ramdas, cannot be closer than Matribandhus and must be postponed upon any view of the Hindu text and decided authorities to the other two claimants Parvatibai and Fulkorebai.3. Fulkorebai is the wido...
Tag this Judgment!A. Mouna Vs. J.E. Mouna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR872; 17Ind.Cas.215
Chandavarkar, J.1. We are indebted to each of the learned pleaders, Mr. Ratanlal and Mr. N. K. Mehta, for having assisted us with his arguments as amicus curiae in this reference. The question is whether the Resident at Aden has jurisdiction to try and pass decrees in cases of divorce under the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869). Section 3 of the Aden Act (Bom. Act II of 1864), which is an Act to provide for the administration of civil and criminal justice at Aden, enacts that the Resident may hear and determine, in the first instance, all cases instituted in his Court, of whatever nature and whatever may be the amount or value of the property in dispute.2. The Resident in making this reference has expressed his opinion that under this section his Court has jurisdiction to try suits under the Indian Divorce Act. But that interpretation of the section gives it a wider effect than could have been intended by the Legislature. The section in substance means that the Resident has jurisdiction ...
Tag this Judgment!Kondu Kanhuji Dhavde Vs. Vishnu Moreshvar Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR801; 17Ind.Cas.176
Chandavarkar, J.1. The Transfer of Property Act provides that in the case of a sale of immoveable property of the value of Rs. 100 or more, the transfer shall be only by a registered deed. Whether in any particular case, there being a registered deed, that deed has the effect of creating the transfer contemplated by the Legislature must depend upon the circumstances of the case. Words of conveyance, it has been held, are not absolutely necessary to create a transfer. All depends upon the intention and acts of the parties. Now in the present case what the parties did was that they entered into a transaction, which they embodied in a deed. That deed, no doubt, is described as a contract of sale, but it was also registered, and it distinctly provided that on certain events happening the property should be regarded as sold to the vendee. And we have on the evidence the fact found by the Court below that it was in consequence of this registered deed that the vendee was put into possession o...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Bhawani Kumar Vs. Mathura Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1046
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal, from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Calcutta, dated the 10th January 1908, which set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya in Bengal, dated the 27th January 1905.2. The suit was brought by the appellant as plaintiff to obtain possession of a certain share, amounting to 5 annas 1 1/2 pies, in four villages in the Gaya district which are named in the plaint. The appellant's rights are those of a purchaser who bought these properties at a revenue-sale, that is to save sale for arrears of revenue. The appellant pleads that he has received, in his character of purchaser and as from the date of sale, a right which cannot be defeated by the respondent. The respondent was a mortgagee holding a security over the property for money lent thereon, and in respect of this loan the property was sold in execution to him. It is out of this conflict between the rights of the former, who may be called the revenue vendee, and the latter, who was mortgage...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Ahmed Haji Hassam Vs. Essaji Tajbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1007; 17Ind.Cas.696
Dinshaw D. Davar, Kt. J.1. This suit was filed on the nth of October 1910 as a Short Cause. The plaintiff is the mortgagee of several immoveable properties belonging to the defendant and he seeks to recover in this suit Rs. 5,69,166-8-9 with further interest from the 6th of October 1910. In his plaint the plaintiff relies on an alleged adjustment of account which he says took place on the 31st of August 1910 whereby a sum of Rs. 5,71,770-2-0 was found to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant has put in a long written statement whereby he disputes the genuineness of the accounts of the plaintiff and states that the adjustment was obtained from him by false and fraudulent representations and is not binding on him and counter-claims that the plaintiff may be ordered to recovery the mortgaged properties to him on payment of what may be found due to the plaintiff on proper accounts being taken by and under the directions of this Court. To his written statement he annexes a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »