Mumbai Court July 1914 Judgments
Rama Tulsa Mahar Vs. Bhagchand Motiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom200; (1914)16BOMLR687
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff claims to be the assignee of the equity of redemption of a certain mortgagor, named Chima, Chima's mortgage having been created on the 17th of June 1890 in favour of the first defendant. The assignment of the plaintiff is dated the 2nd of April 1902. Subsequent to that assignment the Court under a money-decree obtained against Chima in Suit No. 229 of 1902 at a Court-sale held in July 1906 put up to sale the right, title and interest of Chima in this property which was attached by the decree-holder in that suit, and at that sale the defendant-mortgagee was declared to be the purchaser.2. Prior to that purchase the defendant No. I had brought a suit upon Chima's mortgage for sale of the mortgaged property in 1905, and the plaintiff's father, who was Chima's assignee, was joined as a party to that suit. A decree was passed by which the defendants, including the plaintiff's father, were allowed six months time to pay the money due under the mortgage,...
Tag this Judgment!Daji Abaji Sawant Vs. Sakharam Krisna Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom253; (1914)16BOMLR641
Shah, J.1. The main point argued in this appeal relates to the question of the admissibility of certain evidence which the lower appellate Court considered for the first time in appeal. That evidence consists of certain papers relating to a revenue inquiry. During the course of the argument we were led to think that these papers were looked at and considered by the Court without the knowledge and consent of the present appellants. It turns out, however, that these papers were sent for expressly on the application of the plaintiffs, and the pleaders on both sides were heard after these papers were received and before the judgment was pronounced. No objection has been taken to this procedure in the memo of appeal to this Court. Under these circumstances it is quite clear that so far as the present appellants are concerned, they have no just grievance at all as regards the procedure adopted by the lower appellate Court with reference to these papers.2. At the same time we think that it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Shidappa Bapu Biradkar Vs. Ningangauda Siddangauda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom107; (1914)16BOMLR663
Shah, J.1. The facts out of which this second appeal arises are few and undisputed. One Ramangauda had a son Ningangauda, who died during his lifetime leaving a widow Shidava. Thereafter Ramangauda died leaving a widow Avabai, who inherited the property of her husband. In 1878 Shidava adopted Shidappa with the consent of Avabai in whom the estate was vested at the time as the heir of the last full owner. Shidava died in 1904. Avabai apparently had predeceased Shidava. The present plaintiff who is the adopted son of Shidappa claims to be the owner of the property in suit, while the defendants claim the property as the reversioners of Ramangauda. It is common ground that the plaintiff is entitled to succeed, if the adoption of Shidappa by Shidava is valid. The lower Courts have held the adoption to be valid mainly relying upon the case of Payapa v. Appanna I.L.R. (1898) 23 Bom. 327.2. In the appeal before us, the same question has been raised, and it is argued on behalf of the defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Yellava Sakreppa Barki Vs. Bhimappa Gireppa Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Bom96; (1915)17BOMLR128
Heaton, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain lands. It has now been established as a fact in the case that the lands belonged to the Deshgat Watan of the plaintiff's family and were granted to the defendant's family for service, and it has further been found by the Court of first appeal that, if I understand the judgment aright, this grant must, in all probability, have been made sometime subsequent to the year 1853. The first Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff, the Inamdar, had no right to resume the lands in the circumstances appearing in this case and it rejected the claim with costs. On appeal, the District Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had the right to dispense with the services and to resume the lands.2. The case has been fully argued. The facts, such as they are, have been found by the Court of first appeal and we have to deal with these facts as the basis of an inference. But, first of all, I will deal with a quest...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Vinayak Narayan Arte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom217; (1914)16BOMLR598
Shah, J.1. The facts that have given rise to this reference are briefly these : The accused was in the first instance tried by a Second Class Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 336 and 452, Indian Penal Code. He sent up the proceedings under Section 349 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Kolaba, Northern Division, as he thought that he could not pass a sentence sufficiently severe against the accused. The Sub-divisional Magistrate, instead of disposing of the matter himself, transferred the case to a First Class Magistrate, and the First Class Magistrate committed the accused to the Court of Session. The Additional Sessions Judge of Thana has made this reference pointing out that in his opinion the commitment by the First Class Magistrate is illegal.2. Having regard to the special character of the provisions of Section 349 I am of opinion that it is only the District Magistrate or the Sub-divisional Magistrate who has jurisdiction to exercis...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavlal Hiralal Vs. Girdharlal Uttamram Parekh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom267; (1914)16BOMLR643
Scott, Kt., C.J. 1. The only point that we have to dispose of in this appeal is whether the claim of the appellants for rent accrued due under the lease under which the Company enjoyed the property upon which the mill-buildings were erected before the date of the winding-up could be satisfied out of the proceeds of the mill-buildings in priority to the claims of unsecured creditors. The lease of which the Company have taken the benefit provided that:-' If the lessees cause delay in paying the rent the landlords should give one month's notice, and in-spite of that if the lessees or their representatives do not pay the arrears of rent within one month the landlords may recover the arrears of rent with interest at the rate of eight annas per cent, per month from the building or buildings which may have been erected on the land and from the person and property of tie tenants. ' No question has been raised as to the want of notice under that clause, but what we have to consider is whether t...
Tag this Judgment!Chimna Sadashiv Vs. Ram Dayal Prayagdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom302(2); (1914)16BOMLR648
Basil Scott, Kt. C.J.1. The present plaintiff claims to be the holder of a mortgage for Rs. 3,000 and interest upon certain property which has passed to the 5th defendant, the respondent, on a sale in execution of a decree. In the execution proceedings under that decree the present plaintiff intervened and asserted his claim as a mortgagee and prayed that the auction-sale should be held after reserving the mortgage lien of the amount of Rs. 3,580 with future interest, and that the said sum should be awarded to the plaintiff. The executing Court ordered notices to issue to the opponents, namely the plaintiff and the defendant in the suit in which the execution proceedings had been instituted, and on the returnable date of the notices the order was made that ' the mortgage is admitted, I grant the application with all costs on the opponents.' That, we think, was clearly an order under Section 282 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, and it was an order against both the opponents, and the...
Tag this Judgment!Ekradeshwar Singh Vs. Musammat Janeshwari Bahuasin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1914
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR18
John Edge, J.1. The suit in which this appeal to His Majesty in Council has arisen was brought on the 20th December 1906, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur, by Babu Ekradeshwar Singh, who is the appellant here, against Musammat Janeshwari Bahuasin, who is the widow of the plaintiffs younger brother Babu Janeshwar Singh. The plaintiff and his brother were sons of Netreshwar Singh, who was a younger son of Maharaja Rudar Singh of Durbhanga.2. The plaintiff claimed a declaration that he was entitled to the properties in suit which were owned by and in the possession of his deceased brother, a decree for possession of those properties, for mesne profits, and other reliefs. The property claimed consisted of the share which the plaintiff's brother had obtained on a partition between them of immovable property which had been granted by a Babuana grant to their father, of immovable property which had been granted by a Sohag grant to their mother, of immovable property alleged ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahmadalli KamruddIn Vs. Abdulali Karimbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom259; (1914)16BOMLR645
Basil Scott, Kt. C.J.1. In this case the property of a mortgagor was mortgaged to the plaintiff. It consisted of a house-site and a field. Subsequently the house, subject to the mortgage, was sold to defendants Nos. 1-26. The defendants then had a right to redeem the whole property. After this purchase the plaintiff by arrangement with the mortgagor purported to acquire the field for Rs. 1,200 and set off the price pro tanto against the mortgage-debt. He now sues the purchasers of the house to enforce the balance of the mortgage debt by sale of the house. The defendants as such purchasers claim to be entitled to redeem the original mortgage, and to take over the field upon such redemption. It is clear that they would be entitled to do so if the field had not been sold out and out to the plaintiff. But that sale was subsequent to the acquisition of the house-site by the defendants, and it was without their privity or consent. We, therefore, think that they have not been daprived of thei...
Tag this Judgment!Harchand Panaji Vs. Gulabchand Kanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom111(2); (1914)16BOMLR620
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The lower Courts have declined to execute a decree of a Baroda Court against the respondent's father Kanji Kapura which had been transferred for execution against his estate to the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Surat.2. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court states that it was conceded that on the principles of International law as laid down in Gurdyal Singh v. Raja of Faridkot I.L.R. (1894) 22 Cal. 222. the decree would have been a nullity had the defendant not appeared and defended the suit in the Baroda Court, and that it was argued before him that the defendant had voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction by employing a pleader to defend the suits. As to this the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court says that the defendant protested against the right of the Baroda Court to entertain the suit at the earliest opportunity and did not make any other defence.3. We have referred to the statement of the pleadings and issues in the B...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »