Mumbai Court September 1915 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.
Mahadev Raghunath Godbole Vs. Rama Tukaram Devkote
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom208; (1915)17BOMLR962
Batchelor, J.1. The appellant before us was the original plaintiff who in 1908 brought a suit in ejectment against the defendants. It was found, however, that the plaintiff was a purchaser from a mere mortgagee, and the Court consequently gave the defendants a decree for redemption. The sum to be repaid was Rs. 960, of which Rs. 550 were to be paid on 25th March 1909. The balance was payable by yearly instalments of Rs. 100. The defendants paid in all a sum of Rs. 660. In the meanwhile, however, they had lodged an appeal, and the lower appellate Court reversed and remanded the original Court's decree. Therefore on the 3rd August 1912 the defendants applied under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code asking for restitution in respect of the payments which they had made, and for interest at twelve per cent. There was an added prayer that in the event of the plaintiff failing to pay, his house should be attached and sold.2. The lower Courts have ordered the sale of the plaintiff's house...
Pirappa Malkappa Vs. Annaji Appaji Maholkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom185; (1915)17BOMLR974
Batchelor, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is one of some nicety upon the construction of Section 72 of the Dakkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, a section which, as it seems to us, is somewhat unfortunately worded.2. The bond in suit is registered, and was executed on the 19th june 1900. Ordinarily the period of limitation would have expired in 1907, that is, six years from the accrual of the cause of action in 1901. The suit was not filed till 1912, but it is sought to save it by virtue of Section 72 of the Dakkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, which, if it can properly be applied, extends the period to twelve years. The lower appellate Court has upheld the plaintiff's contention on this point.3. It is now contended by Mr. Tulzapurkar for the appellants that Section 72 cannot be invoked in the plaintiff's favour, because the suit is brought not against the person who originally executed the bond in 1900, but against his sons. It is, therefore, urged, following the strict words of...
Mahadeo Rangnath Godbole Vs. Rama Tukaram Devkate and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom194
Batchelor, J.1. The appellant before us was the original plaintiff who in 1908 brought a suit in ejectment against the defendants. It was found, however, that the plaintiff: was a purchaser from a mere mortgagee, and the Court consequently gave the defendants a decree for redemption. The sum to be repaid was Rs. 960, of which Rs. 550 were to be paid on 25th March 1909. The balance was payable by yearly instalments of Rs. 100. The defendants paid in all a sum of Rs. 660. In the meanwhile, however, they had lodged an appeal, and the lower appellate Court reversed and remanded the original Court's decree. Therefore on the 3rd August 1912 the defendants applied under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code asking for restitution in respect of the payments which they had made, and for interest at twelve per cent. There was an added prayer that in the event of the plaintiff failing to pay, his house should be attached and sold.2. The lower Courts have ordered the sale of the plaintiff's hous...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›