Mumbai Court July 1913 Judgments
Girdharilal Prayagdat Vajpe Vs. Manikamma Narayansami and Yeshodabai D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom283; (1913)15BOMLR805
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. These appeals are preferred in two suits filled by different plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dharwar on the 22nd of October 1909. In the first suit, the plaintiff sued to recover the amount due upon a mortgage dated the 31st of March 1885, the mortgage having been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs husband. In the second suit, the plaintiff sued to recover the amount due upon a mortgage of the 31st of July 1885, the mortgage having been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiffs father. The defendant in each case is in possession of the mortgaged property, and in each case the de fence is the same, namely, that the mortgage-deed was passed in order to protect the property from the defendant's credit of Rajesaheb. The defendant in his evidence stated that the considerations for the two deeds were received in the Registration Office and repaid to the mortgagees outside the office. The properties were attached by t...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Gulbai Behramsha D. Harver Vs. Behramsha D. Harver
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom26; (1914)16BOMLR211
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiff, a Parsi married woman has filed this suit for maintenance alleging that her husband has treated her with such cruelty as to render it improper that she would be compelled to live with him and that, therefore, in law that amounts to desertion, or a failure on the part of the husband to fulfill the legal liability entailed upon him to maintain his wife. The question arises whether she is entitled to file a suit on the Original Side of the Court for maintenance It appears that in England when the Ecclesiastical Courts' had exclusive jurisdiction in Matrimonial matters those Courts only granted maintenance or alimony when the order was coupled with a decree for what was equivalent to the present decree for judicial separation. There is no record of any Ecclesiastical Court having given a decree simply for maintenance on the ground that the husband had failed to maintain his wife. The powers of the Ecclesiastical Courts were handed over to the High Court in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikaji Hari Chaubal Vs. Radhabai Sitaram Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR803
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff against the defendant alleging that they are both sharers in a Kulkarni Vatan, and that the defendant has received the profits of the office, and has not paid to her share for a certain number of years. The defendant admits that he has received the profits and admits that the plaintiff is a sharer, but only disputes the quantum of her share. The suit is, therefore, a suit for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff: see Harmukhgauri v. Harisuhhprasad I.L.R. (1888) Bom. 191 and Damodar Gopal Dikshit v. Chintaman Balkrishna Karve I.L.R. (1892) Bom. 42. The claim was, therefore, a claim which could have been tried in a Small Cause Court, assuming there was one having jurisdiction where the suit was instituted, and the claim being under Rs. 500, it is a claim of a Small Cause Court nature in respect of which no second appeal lies. We have been asked by the appellant's pleader to treat it as an application...
Tag this Judgment!Mulia Bhana Vs. Sundar Dana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR876
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. There are two questions on which the parties are at issue in this appeal. The first is whether the defendant who at a previous time had his eaves projecting ten inches over the plaintiff's land (and so far as we can judge he had uninterrupted enjoyment of them for twenty-five years) should be interfered with when he raises the wall of his house and projects the eaves to the same extent at a correspondingly increased height. The learned District Judge has held that except in the case of the discharge of water from the eaves the nature of the interference with the right of the servient tenement is trespass and not within the law relating to easements. We are unable to agree with his opinion upon that point. It appears to us that the definition of 'easement ' in the Easements Act applies just as much to a projection of eaves in a dry country where there is no discharge of rain water as in a country where there is an abundant rainfall and there is discharge of wate...
Tag this Judgment!Vedu Shivlal Vs. Kalu Ukhardu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR827
Batchelor, J.1. This appeal is brought by the original plaintiff to whom in October 1895 the 1st and 2nd defendants mortgaged the land in suit for Rs. 2,000. A term of the mortgage was that the mortgaged property was to remain in possession of the mortgagors, and that they were liable to pay the Government assessment. They continued for some years to pay that assessment, but it fell into arrears for the year 1900-1901 and in consequence the Collector made a demand on the mortgagors for payment. At the same time he made a similar demand on the plaintiff-mortgagee, who refused to pay, I say ' refused to pay,' because he declined to pay except on a certain condition which he was wholly unauthorized to impose. The Collector, therefore, took further steps against the mortgagors, and ultimately in May 1902, he ordered the forfeiture of this land. Afterwards in July of the same year under the provisions of Act VI of 1901 the land was restored to the defaulting mortgagors under the new tenure....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›