Mumbai Court March 1913 Judgments
Gangaram Hatiram Gujar Vs. Dinkar Ganesh Patvardhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR665; 20Ind.Cas.526
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was brought by Gangaram Hatiram to recover damages from the defendant on the allegation that ;he latter when Mamlatdar of Khanapur attached without authority 5 carts containing 100 pieces of jaggery belonging to ;he plaintiff on the Karad Nagar Road on the 8th of April 1910.2. In his written statement the defendant pleads that on the 8th of April being Mamlatdar of Khanapur he was encamped at Kadepur and noticed 5 carts containing 100 pieces of jaggery were being taken by the plaintiff's son from Kadepur towards Kadegaum. On enquiry he learnt that the jaggery was from the fields of Daji Rudraji who owed arrears of land revenue to Government and had to satisfy two decrees in assistance cases. The defendant accordingly ordered that unless the plaintiff paid off the dues of Daji Rudraji, which after deducting Rs. 65 paid on the spot by Daji's son Vithu amounted to Rs. 98, forty pieces of jaggery should be attached.3. The defendant pleaded on the above al...
Tag this Judgment!Chotalal Hirachand Vs. Manilal Gagalbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1913
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom491
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question is whether the possession of a pankh or eaves for the discharge of water overhanging the defendant's land is an easement or an occupation of defendant's property.2. Both Courts have held that the right is an easement but that the interference by the defendant turning back the eaves was trifling and could be compensated by payment of rupees three.3. The appellant contends that an injunction against interference should have been allowed.4. Various cases were cited for appellant.5. In the oldest Bombay case, dated 1878, Mohanlal Jechand v. Amratlal Bechardas (1878) 3 Bom. 174, the Court treated the right sought to be enforced by injunction from two points of view, trespass ripening into adverse possession and, easement, inclining to the view that it was a case of adverse possession.6. In Vitoba bin Raghunath v. D. Anna Rosario (1888) P.J. 212 the Court inclined to the other view citing Gale on Easements. The passage referred to seems to have been the ...
Tag this Judgment!The New Piece Goods Bazaar Co., Ltd. Vs. Jivabhai Vadilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR681; 20Ind.Cas.537
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. Judgment was pronounced in this case on the 9th of September 1912 and a decree passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Under Article 151 of the Limitation Act, the party-aggrieved had twenty days to appeal from the date of that decree, the date of the decree being the date of the pronouncement of the judgment. The memorandum of appeal was, however, filed on the 7th of October, 1912, and it is contended that the appeal is out of time. On the other hand it is argued on behalf of the appellant that the appeal is not out of time, because a period from the 7th of October to some date in December should be deducted under Section 12 of the Limitation Act as the period requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree.2. The Bombay cases, Yamaji v. Antaji I.L.R (1898) Bom. 442 and Tukaram Gopal v. Pandurang Sadaram I.L.R (1901) Bom. 584, proceed upon the principle that an extension of time for filing a memorandum of cannot be claimed unless some application is made to the Court...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Soni Ram Vs. Kanhaiya Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR489
John Edge, J.1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought on the 4th March 1907 by Lala Soni Ram the appellant here for the redemption of a mortgage which had been made on 2nd January 1842 by the then owners of Mauza Kheria Buzurg in favour of Khushwakt Rai, who was on the making of the mortgage put in possession by the mortgagors. The mortgage was usufructuary, the profits except Rs. 80 per annum were to be taken by the mortgagee in lieu of interest and the mortgagee was to pay to the mortgagors annually the Rs. 80 as malikana.2. By the mortgage it was provided that the mortgagors should be entitled to redeem and to obtain possession of the mortgaged property on payment of Rs. 4,000, which was the amount advanced to them. No date for the redemption of the mortgage was specified, and consequently the mortgage became liable to be redeemed immediately after it was made. The whole 20 biswanis of Kheria Buzurg were included in the mortgage, but the original mortgagors or some of...
Tag this Judgment!Tekait Krishna Prasad Singh Vs. Moti Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR515
Moulton, J.1. This is an appeal from an Order of the High Court of Judicature of Fort William in Bengal, dated the 18th May 1908, reversing an Order of the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh, dated the 16th February 1936, which set aside the sale of a property known as Gadi Gandey, which is an impartible zamindary descending by primogeniture situated in that district.2. The prolonged legal proceedings in relation to this matter give rise to many important questions of law, but in the view taken by their Lordships as to the rights of the parties, it will not be necessary to decide more than one or two of such questions. To appreciate the points necessary to be so decided it will be convenient to state first the facts of the case so far as they relate to the sale and then to deal with the legal proceedings that have been taken with regard to it.3. The property originally belonged to the father of the infant appellant, against whom the respondent on the 27th November 1900 obtained a decree...
Tag this Judgment!Richard Ross Skinner Vs. Kunwar Naunihal Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR502
Shaw, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from eleven judgments and decrees of the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces, Allahabad. The suits were for ejectment and were brought by the present appellant, Richard Ross Skinner. The Subordinate Judge of Meerut passed ejectment decrees and the appellant was granted absolute proprietary possession, with mesne profits, of certain villages situated in the District of Bulandshahr in the United Provinces. These judgments and decrees of the Subordinate Judge were reversed by the High Court.2. In the proceedings before the Subordinate Judge many issues were taken and questions investigated and discussed.3. With the exception of those to be hereafter referred to, it is unnecessary to enter upon these questions. For as the result of the discussion before the Board, the appellant made a concession, which was (whatever may have been the nature of the other discussions before the Courts below) no part of his original pleadings or c...
Tag this Judgment!Narsing Shivbakas Marwadi Vs. Pachu Rambakas Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR559; 20Ind.Cas.254
Beaman, J.1. The defendant in this suit purchased the immoveable property from one Fulchand who afterwards turned out to be a mere mortgagee. The defendant, believing himself in good faith to have the title to sell, sold it to the plaintiff in 1903, and the plaintiff thereupon received possession and retained it until 1909. The true owner, the mortgagor, then redeemed and recovered possession from the plaintiff. The plaintiff now sues the defendant for the purchase-money and interest as money paid upon a consideration which has since failed.2. In the first Court the learned Judge held that the suit was governed by Article 62 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act. In his opinion the purchase-money paid to the defendant was money had and received to the plaintiff's use and therefore J the plaintiff would be obliged to bring the suit to recover within three years from date of such receipt.3. On appeal the learned Judge of the first appeal Court held that the suit was governed by Article 97...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›