Mumbai Court February 1913 Judgments
Sardar Nowroji Pudumji Vs. Putlibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR352; 19Ind.Cas.832
Davar, J.1. The plaintiffs are the executors of the will of their deceased brother Sorabji Pudumji, who died on the nth of January 1910. On the 10th of December 1898, twelve years before his death, Sorabji executed his will. That will was made not long after the death of his wife ; and this misfortune seems to have had a most distressing effect upon his mind. He was a man of intelligence and education, having been for many years a Judicial Officer of high standing in the service of Government. The provisions of his will at first sight appear to be very complicated and in some instances are inconsistent with each other. It seems to me that the extreme distress of mind consequent on the death of his wife is solely responsible for the rather tangled document which he has left behind him in which he makes testamentary dispositions of his property amongst his four children who are defendants herein. After the execution of his will, the testator acquired both moveable and immoveable property...
Tag this Judgment!Shrinivas Sarjerao Sholapurkar Vs. Balvant Venkatesh Sholapurkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR533; 20Ind.Cas.162
Chandavarkar, J.1. The property in dispute originally belonged to one Balwant Venkatesh, who died childless on the 12th of November 1881, leaving as his heiress his widow, Gopikabai. She having died on the 12th of April 1901, the suit resulting in the present appeal was brought on the 14th of January 1908 by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Belgaum, claiming the properties as reversionary heir of Balwant Venkatesh. The first respondent, who was the first defendant, is the son of one Venkatesh who as the adopted son of Balwant Venkatesh sold the properties to the other respondents. The real contesting parties, both in the Court below and here, are the appellant and respondents 2 to 4. These latter, both at the trial and here, defended their right to and possession of the properties under a title derived from the father of the first respondent. They also pleaded limitation.2. The first question on appeal is, whether the adoption of the first respondent's ...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaya Lal Vs. the National Bank of India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR472
Moulton, J.1. In order to render plain the nature of the question involved in the present appeal it will be necessary to make a short reference to the history of the litigation between the parties. It furnishes abundant matter for regret. The suit was brought on the 28th August 1902, and owing to the procedure adopted it will be found that at the present date the matter is but little more advanced than it was ten years ago in spite of the fact that large sums must have been expended in the costs of the proceedings in the meantime.2. The facts of the case, so far as they are relevant to the question involved in the appeal, are very simple. On the 15 the August 1902 the defendant Bank which had obtained a decree against the Delhi Cotton Mills Co. Ld., obtained an attachment against certain mills at Sabzi Mandi, and on the 20th August 1902 took possession of them to obtain satisfaction for a sum of Rs. 83,005, the balance then unpaid under such decree. In his plaint the plaintiff states t...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Ichhalal Vs. Narsilal Chaturbhujdas Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR483
Moulton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated 21st January 1909 of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, which affirmed with a slight modification a judgment and decree of the Court of the District Judge of Broach, dated the 12th March 1906. The main question is whether the present suit is barred by the Indian Statutes of Limitation. The Courts below have held that it is not so barred, and from this decision the appellants (who were defendants in the suit) appeal.2. The facts of the case so far as they are relevant to the present appeal are very simple. The mortgage in question was executed on the 4th November 1793. By that deed Desai Partabrai Mugatrai, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents, mortgaged with possession a certain desaigiri dastur and certain pasaeta lands situated in the district of Broach to the predecessor-in-title of the appellants. In 1803 the district of Broach finally came under British rule, and subsequently the desaigiri dastur in Broac...
Tag this Judgment!Haridas Velji Vs. Velji Chaturbhuj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR584; 20Ind.Cas.476
Beaman, J.1. This is a suit for partition by one Haridas Velji against his father Velji Chaturbhooj and his elder brother Jugjivan Velji. The eldest son of Velji, Popat, executed a release to his father in the year 1905, and has, therefore, withdrawn from all participation in the joint family estate.2. It is contended on behalf of defendant Jugjivan that all the property, of which he is possessed, is his self-acquisition.3. The family comes from Jamnagar in Kathiawar, and the plaintiff alleges that there is some joint ancestral immoveable property there. Such property cannot be made the subject of a partition suit in this Court.4. The plaintiff's claim here is limited to a sum of money alleged to be standing to the credit of his elder brother Jugjivan in the books of a partnership known as Kalidas Nathu ; and it is to that property that I must confine my attention.5. The evidence in the case consists, for the plaintiff, of his own and his elder brother Popat's testimony. On the other s...
Tag this Judgment!Kidar Nath Vs. Mathu Mal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR467
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of the Punjab. The decree was dated the 7th of July 1906. It reversed a decree of the District Judge of Delhi. The respondent, as plaintiff, sued the appellant for possession of a house and compound in Delhi. The first Court dismissed the suit, and on appeal the Chief Court gave the plaintiff a decree for possession of the property on certain terms.2. Nine issues were raised, and evidence was adduced with regard to them in the Court of first instance ; the questions have now, however, been limited to the issues upon which the Chief Court proceeded, and which are now to be referred to.3. The first of those questions is, has the relationship of the plaintiff, which is in issue in this suit, been proved The proof is denied. One Bishun Lal the former owner of the property, was twice, married ; by his first wife the allegation is that he had a daughter who was the mother of the plaintiff, Mathu Mai. The oral evidence...
Tag this Judgment!Ragho Chandrarao Kadam Vs. Hanmati Chandrarao Kadam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR389; 19Ind.Cas.903
Rao, J.1. The opponent purchased certain land at a sale held by the Collector in execution of a decree which had been transferred to him under Section 320 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882. On 8th November the Collector put the opponent in possession of the property sold. Thereupon the applicant applied to the Court alleging that he had long been in possession of the property on his own account and not on behalf of the judgment-debtor and complaining that he had been wrongly dispossessed by the auction-purchaser.2. This application was rejected by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to interfere with the Collector's order.3. It is urged by Mr. Rele on behalf of the applicant that under Order XXI, Rule 100 of the Civil Procedure Code the Court is bound to make an inquiry, if a person other than the judgment-debtor complains of his dispossession by the auction-purchaser. This rule has no application to a case, where the execution of the decree has been trans...
Tag this Judgment!Gokuldas Karsandas Vs. Valibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR343; 19Ind.Cas.944
Beaman, J.1. I have stopped the case at this point because I think it useless to waste further time and money in the collection and criticism of evidence upon facts in dispute. I am not going to take the case one inch beyond the admitted facts. On these I do not entertain the least doubt but that the necessary conclusion of law follows.2. Briefly, the material facts are that one Karsandas Liladhar died in 1902, having executed a will, appointing as his executors his two elder sons Ranchordas; and Narotam and bequeathing his estate to his two minor children Gokuldas and Damodar. The family was attacked by plague and the eldest son Ranchordas predeceased his father by a few hours. Next Karsandas died, and very shortly afterwards his younger son Damodar. Thus there remained one executor Narotam and the present plaintiff, to whom the deceased Karsandas Liladhar had left all his estate. Narotam came to Bombay after having entrusted the management -of Karsandas's Mahim properties (iii which ...
Tag this Judgment!Balchand Chaturchand Vs. Chunilal Jagjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR387; 19Ind.Cas.901
Heaton, J.1. In this case the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nasik has applied Section 20 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act to the case of a judgment-debtor who was not an agriculturist when the decree was obtained, but who by discarding trade and limiting himself more exclusively to profits in land had become an agriculturist at the time of the execution. We do not think that he was empowered to do this. There has been a great deal of argument as to the meaning of Section 20, in the light of the definition of the word ' agriculturist' in the Act, but it seems to us to be quite clear that Section 20 cannot apply to the case of a person who was not an agriculturist when the decree was obtained, whatever his status may be thereafter when execution comes to be taken out against him. And therefore as the Subordinate Judge had no power to make the order which he did, granting instalments, we must set that order aside and direct that the execution proceedings should go on according...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharam Vishram Surve Vs. Sadashiv Balshet Lodha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR382
Heaton, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued for redemption. In the first Court an issue was raised as to whether any of the plaintiffs were agriculturists. It was found that plaintiff No. 2 was an agriculturist. But no decree was drawn up in accordance with that preliminary finding. The trial proceeded as a trial under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and a decree was made for redemption.2. Thereupon one of the defendants appealed to the District Court, taking amongst other grounds that it was wrong to hold that plaintiff No. 2 was an agriculturist. An issue on the point was framed by the Court of appeal. It was found that plaintiff No. 2 was not an agriculturist.3. He now comes in second appeal to this Court and urges that the Court of first appeal was wrong in going into this preliminary point at all. He bases his contention largely on the case of Govind v. Vithal : (1912)14BOMLR560 .4. The application of the law on the question of appeals against preliminar...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »