Mumbai Court July 1914 Judgments
Appaji Bharmappa Umrani Vs. Thalegauda Satyappa Umrani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom311; (1914)16BOMLR661
Basil Scott, Kt. C.J.1. We are of opinion that this suit is barred by limitation. The Mamlatdar's order was passed in favour of the defendant for possession on the 28th of September 1906, and from the date of that order the plaintiff had three years to sue. He did not, however, sue within three years, but just before that period expired applied to the conciliator for a certificate under Chapter vi of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. His application was made on the 24th of September 1909, and the conciliator's certificate was issued on the 24th of August 1910. Section 48 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act says:-' In computing the period of limitation prescribed for any such suit or application the time intervening between the application made by the plaintiff under Section 39 and the grant of the certificate under Section 46 shall be excluded.' We have recently held, and it is also conceded in argument, that the time to be excluded must be reckoned by days, and the days bet...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Surja Kanta Acharjya Bahadur Vs. Sarat Chandra Roy Chowdhuri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR925
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree, dated the 22nd May 1908, of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, affirming a judgment and decree of the 27th March 1905 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye.2. The action out of which the appeal arises was brought by the respondent as purchaser at a sale held under Act XI of 1859 in consequence of the non-payment by the owner of the Government assessment of the Khas Mahal Shyampur Paharpur situate within the Perguani Satsahabad, and No. 218 on the Touzi of the Maldah Collaborate, to recover possession of about 2,720 bi has of the Mouzah Nij Shampur alleged to form portion of the said Khas Mahal, the possession of which was withheld by the appallant, and for damages for mense profits and further relief.3. This sale was held on the 14th of January 1891 and duly confirmed on the 15th of March following.4. The appellant relied upon two defences. First that the land, the possession of which was s...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Srinath Roy Vs. Dinabandhu Sen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR901
Sumner, J.1. In this action the plaintiffs claimed, as proprietors of a several fishery in certain tidal navigable waters in Eastern Bengal, a decree, for possession of an exclusive fishery in a portion of a river channel, of which the principal defendants own both the bed and the banks. They succeeded before the Additional Subordinate Judge of Faridpur and Jailed on appeal to the High Court at Calcutta Hence this appeal to their Lordships' Board.2. There is a section of the river system of the Lower Ganges, between Dacca on the left bank and Faridpur on the right, where the great stream divides and for many miles runs in two channels roughly parallel with one another. The general course is to the south-east. The northern of the two channels is much the larger, but the southern, the smaller of the two, is itself wide. Both channels are tidal and navigable.3. The streams in the Gangetic delta are capricious and powerful. In the course of ages the land itself has been depo sited by the r...
Tag this Judgment!Manjunath Subrayabhat Vs. Shankar Manjaya Apartha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom318; (1914)16BOMLR593
Beaman, J.1. The property in question in this suit is a vritti. The plaintiff claims to be the alienee of three-quarters of the cash-allowance paid for the due performance of ceremonies and the worshipping of the idol. The first Court held that the alienation was good and decreed the plaintiff's claim. On appeal the learned Judge remanded certain issues inviting an inquiry into any local custom which would justify the alienation of such a peculiar right as this to one who was not a member of the original family which enjoyed the priestly privilege. The findings on the remanded issues were all against the plaintiff. His suit was accordingly dismissed.2. On appeal it has been strenuously contended that the learned Judge of first appeal adopted a wrong method. It is said that the general principle is that vrittis are alienable to suitable persons, unless a local custom to the contrary or some prohibition by the founder can be proved. This certainly does appear to be the effect of Melvill ...
Tag this Judgment!Sundra Bhau Shetye Vs. Sakharam Gopalshet Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom113; (1914)16BOMLR616
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiffs, three in number, in this suit are seeking to obtain property from the defendant-appellant, granddaughter of one Tukaram, on the ground that Tukaram and their ancestors were joint. The only question which we have to answer here is whether the matter in issue is res judicala by reason of the decision in a suit of 1909 in which the present plaintiff No. 1 was defendant No. 4, and the father of the present plaintiffs 2 and 3 was plaintiff. Doubt less we should have been glad to hold that the matter was res judicata, although the position occupied by plaintiff No. 1 in that suit might have occasioned some difficulty, for there can be no doubt but that the matter substantially in issue here was substantially in issue there, and was decided against the father of the present plaintiffs 2 and 3. Unfortu nately plaintiffs 2 and 3 were not made parties to that suit. Still the matter might have been res judicata against them under the principle, and we think also the w...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmiram Lallubhai Joshi Vs. Bhalashankar Veniram Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom247; (1914)16BOMLR612
Beaman, J.1. The facts in this case are somewhat unusual. There was an ordinary mortgage decree of the year 1903. The mortgagee applied for execution in due course on the 8th of August 1905. In January 1906 the mortgagor applied under the old Code of Civil Procedure to be declared an insolvent. In his application of August 1905 the mortgagee asked that the property might be sold, but did not seek any further relief against the mortgagor. Accordingly in June 1906 the property was sold under this Darkhast. In September of the same year the Court declared the mortgagor an insolvent, although under Section 351 it did not discharge him. In December of the same year the Court struck off the Darkhast of August the 8th, 1905, for two reasons: (1) that it had been satisfied, (2) that the judgment-debtor was now an adjudicated SHANKAK insolvent. The mortgagee appeared from the first in the insolvency proceedings as the sole opposing creditor.2. We might find some difficulty, more, speaking for m...
Tag this Judgment!Sitabai Raghunath Karmakar Vs. Shambhu Sonu Gajana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom312(1); (1914)16BOMLR595
Beaman, J.1. The only question argued before us is whether the defendants, who are found to be permanent tenants, have a right to cut trees upon the lands demised. The plaintiff is found to be the owner of the lands, but the tenants upon the principle stated in Section 83 of the Land Revenue Code are found to be the permanent tenants, that is to say, the origin of their tenancy is lost in antiquity. The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants now centres upon the right of the defendants to cut down trees which ex concesis and by the admission of the plaintiff they have themselves planted. In these circumstances we entertain no doubt whatever but that the defendants have the right which they claim. The English law of fixtures and the principle upon which it is based;; have no general applicability in this country. Therefore, before the passing of the Transfer of Property Act, which deals expressly with circumstances like these, we must be referred, in the absence of any special...
Tag this Judgment!Shridhar Balkrishna Vaidya Vs. Babaji Mula Agarya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom248; (1914)16BOMLR586
Beaman, J.1. In this suit the defendant purported to resign his occupancy rights in a Khotki to the plaintiff, who was one of the Khots in the year 1905. Synchronously with this resignation a lease for a term of five years was executed, and the defendant attorned to the plaintiff in respect of these Lands. it is found as a fact that the proposed resignation was accompanied by consideration. After the expiration of the term the plaintiff has sued the defendant upon the lease, and the question of greatest difficulty which has arisen in the appeal is, whether the defendant is entitled to impugn the plaintiff's title ?2. We pass over the nice point whether the estoppel mentioned in Section 116 of the Evidence Act survives the term upon which the lands may have been demised. This difficulty would arise upon a construction of the words ' during the continuance of the tenancy.' We think it unnecessary to give any decision upon that point, because we entertain no doubt but that the defendant i...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›