Mumbai Court August 1914 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Madhavrao Keshavrao Vs. Sahebrao Ganpatrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom177; (1914)16BOMLR769
Hayward, J.1. The plaintiffs sued as purchasers from the defendants to recover possession of the purchased lands which were subsequently leased to the defendants. The defendants pleaded that the transactions amounted really to a mortgage which they were entitled to redeem, and not to a sale and subsequent lease owing to a contemporaneous agreement for a resale. The original Court held in all the circumstances that the two documents effected a mortgage and not a sale. The first appeal Court held on a practically similar view of the circumstances that the two documents constituted a sale with an agreement for a re-sale.2. The judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge is not as clear as it might have been and consists very largely of a vain repetition of the evidence without any indication of the particular Dearing of the evidence quoted upon the issues to be determined. But it appears that the following material facts were held established. On the 16th of September 1892 a relation on def...
Bhagwat Bhaskar Koranne Vs. Nivritti Sakharam Bhadule
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom245(2); (1914)16BOMLR738
Beaman, J.1. The material facts are that in 1869 Appa, the original owner of this property, sold it to Ramchandra and Ram-chandra passed a contemporaneous agreement, Ex. 87 in the case, under which he agreed that if the vendor Appa paid him Rs. 100 every year for six years he would re-convey the land. So matters stood till after the death of Ramchandra. His son Dattatraya was sued in 1883 by the representatives in interest of the original owner Appa. The suit took the form of a redemption suit, because had it been upon the agreement, merely as an agreement, it is obvious that it would have been time-barred. Dattatraya resisted this suit. His written statement shows that he denied that the agreement had been complied with or could now be enforced, and at the same time alleged that the transaction was not a mortgage. The defence succeeded and the suit was dismissed.2. In 1894 after the death of Dattatraya, Jankibai, who as widow of Ramchandra and mother of the last male holder Dattatraya...
Bhagwat Bhaskar Koranne Vs. Nivratti Sakharam Bhadule and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR39Bom113
Beaman, J.1. The material facts are that in 1869 Appa, the original owner of this property, sold it to Ramchandra and Ramchandra passed a contemporaneous agreement, Exhibit 87, in the case, under which he agreed that if the vendor Appa paid him Rs. 100 every year for six years he would reconvey the land. So matters stood till after the death of Ramchandra. His son Dattatraya was sued in 1883 by the representatives in interest of the original owner Appa. The suit took the form of a redemption suit, because had it been upon the agreement, merely as an agreement, it is obvious that it would have been time-barred. Dattatraya resisted this suit. His written statement shows that he denied that the agreement had been complied with or could now be enforced, and at the same time alleged that the transaction was not a mortgage. The defence succeeded and the suit was dismissed.2. In 1894 after the death of Dattatraya, Jankibai, who as a widow of Ramchandra and mother of the last male holder Datta...
Venkaji Narayan Kulkarni Vs. Gopal Ramchandra Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom124(2); (1914)16BOMLR718
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit mortgaged the land to the defendants in 1876, and in 1879 he passed a razinama relinquishing all his occupancy rights in the said land in favour of the defendants. The defendants at the same time gave the complementary' kabulayat. The trial Judge held that this transaction amounted to a relinquishment of the equity of redemption by the mortgagor in favour of the mortgagees. The learned Judge of first appeal has held that it did not. In his opinion the only effect of the razinama and kabulayat under the Act of 1865 was to confer upon the mortgagees the privilege, as the learned Judge calls it, of paying the Government assessment. We find it a little difficult to understand in what light this could have appeared to the learned Judge a privilege for which any person would be anxious to pay good consideration. However that may be, on the facts found by the learned Judge or first appeal, the case is clearly covered by authority. The judgment of this a...
Basangauda Nagangauda Vs. Basangauda Dodangauda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom202(2); (1914)16BOMLR699
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In my opinion Timava, the widow of Kardepa Dodangauda's brother, is a nearer heir of Dodangauda than his uncle's sons, the defendants.2. I entirely agree with the reasoning and conclusion of Hayward J. upon the point. The compact series of heirs ends with the brother's son (Mitakshara, Ch. II, Section V, pi. 2 J Mayukha, Section VIII.'pl. 18).3. The grand-mother's place is specially fixed and this alone gives her preference over unspecified Sapindas in the line of the father. I can find no reason for treating the brother's widow as a Sapinda to be postponed to all males capabl of inheriting in the line of the grand-father. On the contrary the position that brother's wives are Sapindas in the line of the father for all purposes results clearly from the following passage in the Acharakanda of Vijnaneshvara which was discussed in Lallubhai Bapubhai v. Mankuvarbai I.L. R (1876) Bom. 388. and very recently by the Judicial Committe in Ramchandra Martand v. Vinayak Ve...
Basangavda BIn Nagangavda Vs. Basangavda BIn Dodangavda and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR39Bom87
Beaman, J.1. The point of greatest importance and difficulty in this appeal is whether Timmava, widow of Kardeppa, or the first cousins of the deceased Dodangavda stand nearest in the reversion.2. Dodangavda and Kardeppa were undivided brothers. Kardeppa died leaving him surviving his widow Timmava. Then Dodangavda died and his widow Doddava took her life estate. She professed to give away the whole of it in 1883 to her deceased husband's first cousins, the defendants. Twenty-six years later she adopted the plaintiff. Timmava, the widow of Kardeppa, is still alive.3. The defendants rely on the doctrine of acceleration which may now he taken to be established law. I shall have to say a few words upon that later. Here it is sufficient to state that true acceleration can only occur between the tenant of the life estate and the nearest reversioner. Therefore, if Timmava was the nearest reversioner in 1883, there could have been no acceleration in that year in favour of the defendants, and ...
Nathabhai Tricamlal Vs. Ranchodlal Ramji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom242; (1914)16BOMLR696
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sued the two defendants on a promissory-note. The 2nd defendant pleaded that he was a surety. There was some difficulty in serving the 1st defendant, and we gather from the record that his name was struck out. As a year had not elapsed, presumably this was done, if not at the request, at least with the consent of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 then contended that as the act of the plaintiff in having the defendant No. i's name thus struck off operated as a complete discharge of the principal debtor, he, the surety, was likewise discharged and the suit must be dismissed.2. The learned Judge who tried this suit as a Small Cause Court suit was of opinion that this contention was sound and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.3. We think that the striking off of the defendant No. i's name was a procedure under 0. IX, Rule 5, rather than Order XXIII, Rule i. And all the authorities in all the Courts of India who have had this question under consideration, although t...
Fazulbhoy Jaffer Vs. the Credit Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom128(2); (1914)16BOMLR730
Macleod, J.1. This is an application by a share-holder to be struck off the list of contributories on the ground that he was an infant at the time he applied for the shares and that therefore, his contract with the Company was void. The applicant may be considered to be in the same position as a shareholder whose name has been put upon the register either without his consent or without any application on his part. As soon as he becomes aware of the fact he may refuse to accept the ownership of the shares within a reasonable time but if he allows his name to remain on the register without doing any thing he must be taken to have acquiesced. In Ebbetts' case (1870) 5 CH. App. 302 a minor made a similar application, and Giffard L.J. remarked; 'I do not rely on the transfer which he executed, but on the ground that he acquiesced for a lengthened period in being on the register.2. Again in Re Yeoland Consols Limited (1888) 58 L.T. 922 the applicant was put upon the register when a minor wit...
Nathabhai Tricamlal Vs. Ranchhodlal Ramji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR39Bom52
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sued the two defendants on a promissory note. The second defendant pleaded that he was a surety. There was some difficulty in serving the first defendant, and we gather from the record that his name was struck out. As a year had not elapsed, presumably this was done, if not at the request, at least with the consent of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 2 then contended that as the act of the plaintiff in having the defendant No. 1's name thus struck off operated as a complete discharge of the principal debtor, he, the surety, was likewise discharged and the suit must be dismissed.2. The learned Judge who tried this suit as a Small Cause Court suit was of opinion that this contention was sound and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.3. We think that the striking off of the defendant No. 1's name was a procedure under Order IX, Rule 5, rather than Order XXIII, Rule 1. And all the authorities in all the Courts of India who have had this question under consideration, al...
In Re: Indian Companies Act (Vi of 1882)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1914
Reported in: (1915)ILR39Bom331
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The appellant appeals from an order of the Chamber Judge including him in the list of contributories in the Credit Bank of India, a limited Company now being wound up by the Court. The appellant applied for fifty shares in this Company which were allotted to him on the 8th of January 1910 on payment of Rs. 10 per share, the nominal Value being Rs. 50 if he has been rightly included among the contributories he will be liable for Rs. 40 per share. He contests his liability on the ground that, he was a minor at the date of the allotment. It is not disputed that he attained majority in August 1912. He has received dividends at the rate of six per cent, per annum on the sums paid upon his shares twice in each of the years 1911, 1912, and 1913, and he has raised no objection to his name being included in the register of members until January 1914. Under these circumstances it cannot be doubted that he has intentionally permitted the Company to believe him to, be a sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »