Mumbai Court October 1913 Judgments
Tuljaram Harichand Gujar Vs. Sitaram Narayan Kasar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom46; (1914)16BOMLR39; 24Ind.Cas.665
Heaton, J.1. In this case my opinion is that there has been a miscarriage of justice owing to a want of understanding of the intention of the Procedure Code.2. A suit No. 685 was filed in 1910. Up to the 13th of April 1912 a summons had not been served on the defendant. On that date the present plaintiff applied to have his name entered in the place of his deceased father who was the original plaintiff. That application was granted, and the 1st of June Sitabam was fixed for the final disposal of the suit. A notice was issued to the defendant to appear on that day with his witnesses. On the 1st of June the plaintiff appeared and the defendant also appeared and put in a written statement, but neither party produced any witnesses. The suit was a mortgage suit, and in his written statement the defendant denied that he had executed the mortgage-deed or had incurred the debt sued for. This, therefore, was eminently a case in which all the issues arising out of the contentions should have bee...
Tag this Judgment!Haribhai Hansji Vs. Nathubhai Ratnaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom102; (1914)16BOMLR62
Shah, J.1. In this case the plaintiff used formally to redeem but substantially to recover possession of the property mentioned in the valatdan patta dated the 10th of June 1902. Several defences were raised to this suit on behalf of defendant No. 1. It was held by the trial Court that the document called the valatdan patta was a mortgage, that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession, and that he was liable to give certain compensation to the defendant as claimed by him. The decree of the trial Court was confirmed subject to a slight variation as to interest by the lower appellate Court.2. The plaintiff has now appealed and has urged that the order of the lower Court allowing compensation to the defendant is wrong, firstly because the bond is void under Section 257 A of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, and secondly because the bond is void in virtue of the provisions of the Bhagdari Act. It is contended that no compensation under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act shoul...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Major J.E. Hughes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR121
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was instituted by the plaintiff to recover payment of the amount of taxes levied by the Cantonment authorities at Poona, -which the plaintiffs paid under protest on the ground that the assessment was illegal. The learned District Judge, by whom the case was heard, disposed of it in favour of the plaintiffs, and this appeal has been preferred by Government on two grounds, first, that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and, secondly, that in respect of a portion of the money claimed the suit is barred by the provisions of Article 62 of the Limitation Act.2. The argument on the question of jurisdiction amounted to this. According to the assessment rules certain authorities have been constituted for the assessment of taxes, and their assessment is final, except in so far as any question may arise as to the legality of their action having regard to the jurisdiction conferred upon them by the assessment rules, and it was contended that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Bhimaji Deshpande Vs. Sadhu Awaji Parit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom152; (1914)16BOMLR132
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs brought this suit in 1908 to recover possession of land alleging that in 1899 they had been wrongfully deprived of their possession by Raghunath Ramchandra who and the defendants, who derive title' under him, have been in wrongful possession ever since. The defendants pleaded that Raghunath was the owner and that the plaintiffs had been his tenants until they relinquished the property as they could not pay the rent.2. The learned Subordinate Judge raised four issues: 1st whether before 1899 the plaintiffs held the property under the Swami of Chaphal or under Raghunath Ramchandra 2nd whether the plaintiffs gave up possession voluntarily 3rd whether the defendants were entitled to retain possession against the plaintiffs; and 4th as to the mesne profits recoverable by the plaintiffs. His findings were that the plaintiffs held under the Swami of Chaphal and not under Raghunath; that the plaintiffs did not give up the possession voluntarily and that ...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Mukund Samant Vs. Rakhmabai Mukund
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom28; (1914)16BOMLR57
Heaton, J.1. This is a case the determination of which depends upon whether a certain agreement, Exhibit 61, in the case, can or cannot be given effect to. The agreement is one of a kind that has often been the occasion of litigation. It was made on the occasion of an adoption and it gives to the adoptive mother, her husband being dead, a certain control over the property which would otherwise immediately pass to the adopted son. This was with the consent of the natural father who gave his son in adoption.2. Mr. Jayakar has argued the case from the side which maintains that the agreement cannot be given effect to. He has not asked us to go into the general question, an attempt to do which was very recently made and the result of which appears in the judgment in the case of Vyasacharya v. Venku bai : (1912)14BOMLR1109 . All he asks us to do is to find that the agreement is not fair and reasonable and must, therefore, be set aside.3. Now I speak of this document as an agreement, because ...
Tag this Judgment!Pirsab Kasimsab Itagi Vs. Gurappa Basappa Kadigi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom47; (1914)16BOMLR111
Beaman, J.1. In this case the plaintiff has sued to have certain leases, executed by his adoptive mother Rachava to the defendants, set aside. The material facts are, that in January 1893 or thereabouts, the husband of the lessor and the lessorf being then man and wife without issue, adopted the plaintiff with the consent of his natural father, and apparently shortly after the actual adoption executed a writing Ex. 30 in the case. That writing states that the adopting parents possessed certain property, and after their death the adopted son is to obtain the whole of it. In 1894 the adoptive father Basappa died. We have not unfortunately the exact date. According to the plaintiffs own statement in his plaint, within two or three months of the death of his adoptive father Basappa, his adoptive mother Rachava drove him out of the house, and from that time until her death in 1907 the plaintiff resided PBAPPA with his natural father or at any rate never returned to the home of his adoptive ...
Tag this Judgment!Mallik Saheb Abdul Saheb Gandigiwad Vs. Mallikarjunappa Shivamurteya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR1142
Beaman J.1. In 1891 a widow with the life estate Irawa sold the plaint property to the defendants. The then heir was the daughter of her deceased husband Gurushidawara Thirteen days after the sale assented to it. The only difficulty that could have arisen in the case would have Jain in proving the consent of Garushidawa. -That has been done by a writing. The Courts below appear to have doubted whether such a writing could be admitted without registration. Looking to the terras of the writing however, it appears to us that it is clearly outside and beyond the scope of Section 17, class. (of), of the Registration Act. All that Gurushidawa had at that time was a spes successions as heir. In the writing she purports to convey nothing but merely gives her consent to the alienation by her mother which amounts to this. She says ' If I should happen to survive you I will not endeavour to set aside the alienation which you have made and I will ratify it'. In point of fact she did survive her mo...
Tag this Judgment!Behram Rashid Irani Vs. Sorabji Rustamji Elavia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom15; (1914)16BOMLR35
Beaman, J.1. In February 1907 the defendant deposited title-deeds of certain property in the Zilla of Nasik with the plaintiff. The plaintiff advanced to the defendant a sum of money and the present suit has been brought upon the footing of the said deposit which was made in the City of Bombay being an equitable mortgage of the Nasik property. I doubt much whether the Legislature ever intended to extend the doctrine of equitable mortgage by mere deposit of deeds in Bombay to lands lying anywhere outside Bombay. But as the section is worded I will not press that doubt here. Now, an equitable mortgage under Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act needs three facts to be proved : (1871) 7 B.L.R.O.C. 55 a debt (1907) 9 Bom. L.R. 287 deposit of title-deeds, and I.L.R. (1886) 10 Bom. 634 an intention that the latter should be security for the former. I have often to notice in these Courts the growth of the doctrine of equitable mortgage which was very summarily in troduced by three judgme...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›