Mumbai Court October 1915 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
The Assistant Collector Vs. Vithaldas Vallavadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom143; (1915)17BOMLR1140; 33Ind.Cas.464
Batchelor, J.1. These are appeals brought from decisions of the learned Joint Judge of Ahmedabad in certain references made to him by the Assistant Collector of Kaira under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The appellant is the Assistant Collector of Kaira, and the appeals raise a point of law which is attended with some little difficulty and a question of fact upon which, I think, there is no difficulty.2. The question of law arises from the fact that the land in controversy formed part of an unrecognized sub-division of a narva holding, and that being so, the question is, whether the case is governed by Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act. The learned Joint Judge held in the negative. The contention for the appellant is that since under Section 3 of the Bhagdari and Narvadari Tenures Act (Bombay Act V of 1862) it was not lawful to the claimants to alienate this parcel of land, therefore Section 32 of the Land Acquisition Act must apply, and an order should be made un...
Bhaskar Gopal and anr. Vs. Padman Hira Chowdhari and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom228; (1916)ILR40Bom313
Batchelor, J.1. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought in ejectment, and the plaintiff made title on a registered sale-deed executed to him in 1910 by the widow and daughters of Rama, the original owner of the property. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that they were tenants of Rama prior to the year 1909 and that in the year 1909 the property was sold to them for Rs. 50 by Rama's widow. Admittedly this sale deed was not registered, but the defendants' contention was that no registration was necessary, since the value of the property was under Rs. 100. The lower appellate Court has decided in the plaintiff's favour, relying upon the case of Sibendrapada Banerjee v. Secretary of State for India in Council (1907) 34 Cal. 207 where a certain parcel of land, having been transferred to the Public Works Department for a sum less than Rs. 100 without any registered instrument, the Secretary of State for India in Council sued the defendants to recover possession of the ...
Murlidhar Narayan Gujarathi Vs. Vishnudas Balmukunddas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom305; (1916)ILR40Bom321
Shah, J.1. Several questions of law have been argued in this appeal, but it is necessary only to decide one of them as it is sufficient to dispose of the appeal.2. The facts connected with that point are briefly these: The suit, out of which this second appeal has arisen, was filed on the 4th of June 1907 on a mortgage dated the 29th of April 1897. The mortgagee sought to enforce his mortgage claim by sale of the mortgaged property. A preliminary decree was passed on the 30th of June 1910 as contemplated by Order XXXIV, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code, ordering, among other things, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the mortgage amount within six months to the plaintiff and in default directing a sale of the mortgaged property. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 failed to pay the amount, and a final decree for sale was made on the 15th of March 1912 apparently as contemplated by Rule 5 of the same Order. The present appellant, who is defendant No. 1, had not appealed against the decree of the...
Bhaskar Gopal and ors. Vs. Padman Hira Chowdhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.267
Batchelor, J.1. The suit in which this appeal arises was brought in ejectment, and the plaintiff made title on a registered sale-deed executed to him in 1910 by the widow and daughters of Rama, the original owner of the property. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that they were tenants of Rama prior to the year 1909 and that in the year 1909 the property was sold to them for Rs. 50 by Rama's widow. Admittedly this sale-deed was not registered, but the defendants' contention was that no registration was necessary, since the value of the property was under Rs. 100. The lower Appellate Court has decided in the plaintiff's favour, relying upon the case of Sibendrapada Banerjee v. Secretary of State for India in Council 34 C. 207 : 5 C.L.J. 390, where a certain parcel of land, having been transferred to the Public Works Department for a sum less than Rs. 100 without any registered instrument, the Secretary of State for India in Council sued the defendants to recover possession ...
Sonu Khushal Khadake Vs. Bahinibai Krishna and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.950
Batchelor, J.1. This appeal is brought by the plaintiff. His suit has been dismissed by both the Courts below on the ground that it was incompetent under Order II, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The suit was brought on a sale-deed of October 1910 passed in the plaintiff's favour by the 1st defendant, Bahini. Bahini and Tapi were the daughters of one Tukaram Narayan who died in 1901, leaving his widow Bhagirathi and the two daughters I have named. In the year 1910, Suit No. 270 of that year was brought by Bahini, the present 1st defendant, against her sister, Tapi, the present 2nd defendant, and Zagdu, the present 4th defendant, for possession of Survey No. 824 which had been sold to Zagdu in January 1906 by Bhagirathi. In the same month, January 1906, but a few days earlier, Bhagirathi had sold Survey Nos. 403 and 404 to the present 3rd defendant, Dagdu. It is found as a fact that Dagdu and Zagdu and the 3rd brother, Ukhardu, defendant No. 5, are joint in estate. The present su...
Pratapchand Gulabchand Vs. Purshotamdas Malji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom214; 33Ind.Cas.366
Beaman, J.1. The first point raised and argued in limine is whether the writing of the 14th of September 1911 is admissible in evidence. If it is a promissory note, it is clearly insufficiently stamped, and, therefore, inadmissible under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. I should have had very little hesitation, not withstanding the decisions in the cases of Govind Gopal v. Balwantrao Hari 22 B. 986 and Tirwpathi Goundan v. Rama Reddi 21 M. 49 : 7 M.L.J. 291, in holding that this was in substance a promissory note although it does not contain an express promise to pay, but for the term inserted in it for the repayment of interest at 9 per cent per annum every month. Had that term been omitted, I do not know how it could have been contended that the mere omission of the words I promise to pay at the expiration of three years' period' would really have affected the character of the document, or could have been imported as a qualification of the intention of the parties who made it at t...
Ramchandra Narayan Joshi and ors. Vs. Shripatrao BIn Tukojirao Deshmuk ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom278; (1916)ILR40Bom248
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The facts found by the District Judge are that one Vyankatrao Deshmukh mortgaged on the 21st March 1861 the lands in suit in favour of two mortgagees, and subsequently the interest of the 2nd mortgagee became vested in the 1st mortgagee. In 1881 Vyankatrao instituted a suit No. 399 of 1881 against the mortgagee for redemption, but after issues were settled in that suit he died, the date of his death being 9th July 1883. On the 15th October 1883, the Court directed that the suit should abate. This suit was filed in 1912 by Tukojirao, Vyankatrao's son, and three grandsons for redemption upon the ground that the land mortgaged was ancestral property in which the plaintiffs, Vyankatrao's sons, had an interest with him at birth. It was also alleged that an adult brother of Vyankatrao was interested as a co-parcener in the same property. In the trial Court the suit was dismissed on the strength of the order of abatement passed on the l5th October 1883.2. An appeal was pre...
Ramchandra Narayan Joshi and ors. Vs. Shripatrao Tukojirao Deshmukh an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.771
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The facts found by the District Judge are that one Vyankatrao Deshmukh mortgaged on the 21st March 1861 the lands in suit in favour of two mortgagees, and subsequently the interest of the 2nd mortgagee became vested in the 1st mortgagee. In 1881 Vyankatrao instituted a suit, No. 399 of 1881, against the mortgagee for redemption, but after issues were settled in that suit he died, the date of his death being 9th July 1883. On the 15th October 1883, the Court directed that the suit should abate. This suit was filed in 1912 by Tukojirao, Vyankatrao's son, and three grandsons for redemption upon the ground that the land mortgaged was ancestral property in which the plaintiffs, Vyankatrao's sons, had an interest with him at birth, It was also alleged that an adult brother of Vyankatrao was interested as a co-parcener in the same property. In the Trial Court the suit was dismissed on the strength of the order of abatement passed on the 15th October 1883.2. An appeal was p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›