Mumbai Court December 1915 Judgments
Dattatraya Ramachandra Savale and ors. Vs. AjmuddIn FakruddIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.146
1. The dates in this case are as follows: On the 30th July 1913, a preliminary decree was passed in a mortgage suit. On the 25th August 1913, a final decree was passed by which the appellant was required to pay Rs. 8,000. On the 6th November 1913, he preferred this appeal against the preliminary decree only, although his objection is as regards Rs. 2,000 of the amount which he was required to pay by the final decree. The dates clearly permit him to raise objection in one and the same appeal to both the decisions of the Court in the preliminary decree and the decision in the final decree. If at the time of the appeal he had only in his way the preliminary decree, he would have to pay a Court-fee of Rs. 10. Having, however, already a final decree in his way, he would have, in order to appeal against the decree which he really objects to, to pay a Court-fee exceeding Rs. 100; so that the reason of his action is pretty obvious. He is trying to avoid payment of the Court-fee upon the final ...
Tag this Judgment!Alimahomed Rahimtullah Vs. Pandurang Laxman and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom287; 33Ind.Cas.701
Macleod, J.1. This is one of those melancholy disputes between a building contractor and his employer which come before these Courts so frequently. Although the amount in dispute is small, the point at issue is an important one to architects and the persons who employ them.2. On the 12th of March 1914, plaintiff entered into a contract with Pandurang Laxman and Laxman Kashinath with reference to the work of building a house at Chandanwadi in Sonapur Lane. The agreement states that Pandurang Laxman and Laxman Kashinath, defendants in this suit, have got the plans in respect thereof passed by the Municipality through the engineer, Mr. Laxman Harischandra Chowdhari. Defendants had asked for lenders showing the rates for the said work, and out of the same they have accepted the tender of Allimahomed Rahimtulla, the plaintiff. Then it is agreed that the plaintiff's work was to be measured every month by the defendants' engineer and on receipt of the engineer's chiti they would pay the amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Gangabai Peerappa Minor by Her Guardian Ad Litem Howanna BIn Nillappa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom283; (1916)ILR40Bom369
Shah, J.1. One Pirappa, by caste a Lingayat, died in 1907 leaving him surviving a wife, Limbabai, who had no issue, a Mohatar wife, who had two daughters, and the present plaintiff who claims to be his illegitimate son by a concubine Sitabai, who was by caste a Shimpi woman. All these persons except the plaintiff and the defendant who is one of the daughters by the Mohatar wife, are dead.2. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the property of Pirappa from the defendant. The defendant urged that the plaintiff; had really no interest in the property as he could not claim the position and rights of a dasi putra according to Hindu Law, and it was also urged that the connection between Sitabai and Pirappa being adulterous and forbidden by law, the text applicable to a dasi putra would not apply to the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff's claim for the whole property was not allowed; but it was found that he was a dasi putra and as such entitled to a moiety of the property in suit, and a decr...
Tag this Judgment!Gangabai Pirappa Vs. Bandu Pirappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1915
Reported in: 32Ind.Cas.986
Shah, J.1. One Pirappa, by caste a Lingayat, died in 1907 leaving him surviving a wife Limbabi, who had no issue, a Mohatar wife, who had two daughters, and the present plaintiff who claims to be his illegitimate son by a concubine Sitabai, who was by caste a Shimpi woman. All these persons except the plaintiff and the defendant, who is one of the daughters by the Mohatar wife, are dead.2. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the property of Pirappa from the defendant. The defendant urged that the plaintiff had really no interest in the property as he could not claim the position and rights of a dasi putra according to Hindu Law, and it was also urged that the connection between Sitabai and Pirappa being adulterous and forbidden by law, the text applicable to a dasi putra would not apply to the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff's claim for the whole property was not allowed; but it was found that he was a dasi putra and as such entitled to a moiety of the property in suit, and a decree...
Tag this Judgment!Abdurahim Haji Ismail Mithu Vs. Halimabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1915
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR635
Viscount Haldane, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa reversing a judgment of the High Court of East Africa at Mombasa, The question to be decided is whether the succession to the estate of one Haji Ismail Mithu, deceased, is governed, as the appellant, who is a son, claims by Hindu law, or whether the succession is governed by Mahomedan law. as the respondent, who is the widow, asserts. This question arose in an action brought by the respondent against the appellant claiming administration and a declaration that she was entitled, on the footing that Mahomedan law applied, to an eighth of her husband's estate. On the appellant's contention the respondent, as widow of the deceased, became entitled to no more than maintenance.2. The deceased was a merchant who had settled at Mombasa, and was member of the Indian sect known as Memons. According to the case as stated by the appellant's counsel, some four or five hundred years ago the Loannas, a ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjivan Mulji Vs. Nathji Jageshwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom237; 32Ind.Cas.938
Basil Scott C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for the removal of what is styled in the plaint a curved heap of clay projecting beyond the otta of a house formerly belonging to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and subsequently transferred to defendant No. 3. He alleged that in a complaint lodged before the 3rd Class Magistrate against defendants Nos. 1 and 2, it was agreed that the heap projecting beyond the otta was to be removed and that owing to an undertaking accepted by defendant No. 4 the complaint was withdrawn; and later on he says that defendant No. 3 has been joined as he purchased the plaint house, that is, the house to which the otta appertained mentioned above in the plaint, and defendant No. 4 was made a party because of his kabuliyat to get the heap removed. The defendant No. 4 in his written statement denied being a surety to the compromise between the parties and said that in the criminal proceedings he was working as a mukhtyar on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and that finally an ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvanath Ganesh Joshi and anr. Vs. Bala Kaku Kapadi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom279; 34Ind.Cas.147
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff, by a sale-deed of the 9th of November 1908, took a transfer of certain immoveable property from the 1st and 2nd defendants in which it was stated by the transferors that plots bearing serial numbers 2 to 4 are given for cultivation to Sayyad Ali Bjivasaheb under an oral agreement for one year on a makta (rent) of Rs. 5-12-0, and having paid the consideration money he was obstructed in his attempt to obtain possession of these plots by the alleged yearly tenants who claimed to be permanent tenants. He, therefore, has brought this suit against his vendors and the tenants to recover possession of the land from the tenants or, in the alternative, to recover Rs. 600 as damages from the vendors on account of the misrepresentation in the sale-deed as to the nature of the tenancy. It has been held that the tenants are permanent tenants, and with that question of fact we cannot interfere in second appeal.2. The more difficult question is whether the defendants...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›