Mumbai Court December 1916 Judgments
Bapu Apaji Potdar Vs. Kashinath Sadoba Gulmire
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR100
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question for our determination is whether when the plaintiff being the owner of certain immoveable property seeks to recover possession of that property, it is a valid defence to the suit that the plaintiff' has agreed to sell the property to the defendant the agreement being at the date of suit still capable of specific enforcement but there being no registered conveyance passing the property to the defendant. It is to be taken for the purposes of the case that possession has been taken by the defendant under the agreement for sale and that he is willing to perform his part of it with the plaintiff.2. We must start with the propositions enunciated in Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act that sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid or part promised, that such transfer in the case of immoveable property of the value of upwards of Rs. 100 can only be made by a registered instrument and that a contract for sa...
Tag this Judgment!Gururao Shrinivas Heblikar Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom109; (1917)19BOMLR117
Shah J.1. It will be convenient at the outset to set forth the genealogical table of the family of the original grantee of the Hebli estate. Appajirao | Balwantrao ____________________________________|___________________________ | |Suryarao Ramachandrarao____|__________________ ________________|________| | | | Lakshmanrao Venkataro Krishnarao Raghunathrao____|_________ | ______|__________ || | | | | |Appajirao Madhavrao | Pandurangaro | *Ramchandrarao | | | (Adopted son) | | | | Suryarao | | | | | | | Lakshman | | | | | *Ramachandrarao | Kattobarao | (given in adotion | alias Annasaheb | to Raghunathrao | | | | | | | ___________________________________________|_____________ | | | | | |Vithalrao Govindrao Krishnarao Shrinivasrao | | | | | |Chidambarrao Ramarao Raghunathrao Gururao |___|___________ (Plantiff) || | |Vithalrao Madhavrao | | _________________________________________________________________________| | | | |Narsingrao Bhaskarrao Narayanrao Balwantrao2. The original grant of t...
Tag this Judgment!Tricomdas Cooverji Bhoja Vs. Sri Sri Gopinath Jiu Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR450
Sumner, J.1. In this case an idol, by his Paricharaks and Shebaits, sued to recover mining royalties under a lease of his colliery property in Burdwan. The Shebaits, who made the agreement in suit, were four brothers and the property was the ijmali debottar property of their family deity. Owing to some quarrel the collection of rents was not always joint and, at the time when the principal defendant was making default in paying the royalties, one of the brothers obtained from him payment of 4,000 rupees on account of his share, on. the terms that, if his co-sharers did not agree to give up their claim to interest and be content with like sums, he was to be paid by the principal defendant in the same proportion as the co-sharers might be paid. This brother was accordingly unwilling to join as a plaintiff in bringing the suit and so was joined as a second defendant. As such he appended to his defence a claim against the first defendant to recover pari passu with the plaintiffs, after giv...
Tag this Judgment!Har Chandi Lal Vs. Sheoraj Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR444
Parker, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dated the 25th February, 1913, of the High Court (Allahabad), reversing a decree dated the 8th July, 1911, of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly. The question is whether the appellants are entitled to enforce a mortgage against the respondents.2. The mortgage in question is dated the 13th November, 1876 and was executed by Jai Chand in favour of Lala Chatri Lal, the mortgaged property being a five-sixths share in the mauza Nagaria Bikrampur. The amount secured was 5,500 rupees. The mortgagor died leaving a widow, Musammat Nandan and a separated nephew, Phul Singh. Under the Hindu law Musammat Nandan had a widow's interest and Phul Singh had a reversion contingent on his surviving her in the property subject to the mortgage. Musammat Nandan could dispose of the property with the concurrence of Phul Singh, but Phul Singh could not, without the concurrence of Musammat Nandan, dispose of the reversion so as to defeat the interests of those who wo...
Tag this Judgment!Parshottam Veribhai Vs. Chhatrasangji Madhavsangji Thakor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom65; (1917)19BOMLR545
Batchelor, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that a deed of mortgage made in March, 1894, by his father is null and void. The plaintiff also sought to recover possession of the property.2. The plaint stated that the plaintiff is and his father was, a Talukdar of Kherda and the mortgage-deed was void under Section 28 of the Broach and Kaira Incumbered Estates Act, XXI of 1881 after the death of the mortgagor, the plaintiff's father. The defendants are the representatives of the original mortgagee.3. The lower appellate Court has decided in favour of the plaintiff upon the main contention and nothing has been said in the argument before us to lead us to doubt the accuracy of that conclusion. Under Section 28 of Act XXI of 1881 it is provided that in circumstances such as we have here no mortgage shall be valid as to any time beyond the natural life of the mortgagor Talukdar.4. Mr. Thakor, however, on. behalf of the defendants, ha...
Tag this Judgment!Chandulal Dalsukhram Vs. Jeshangbhai Chhotalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom55; (1917)19BOMLR112
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case there was an attachment before judgment and the opponent stood surety under a surety bond for the defendant agreeing with the Court that the defendant should when the Court so directed him produce in Court Es. 2,167-6-0 and costs, or the amount which the Court might direct and that if he failed so to produce it the surety bound himself to pay at the order of the Court such sum as might be ordered by the Court to be paid by the defendant. By reason of the surety bond the defendant was enabled to deal with this property freed from attachment. He died before the hearing of the suit was arrived at in January 1916. The plaintiff at once had his widow substituted as his representative and she is now the defendant in the suit. The surety afterwards applied to the Court that he might be discharged, that his surety bond should be cancelled and the Court ordered that the surety should be discharged, being of opinion that prima facie on the defendant being de...
Tag this Judgment!Mina Kumari Bibi Vs. Raja Bijoy Singh Dudhuria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR424
Parker, J.1. This is a suit for the possession of immoveable property brought by a purchaser under a private alienation against a purchaser at an execution sale, who was also the decree-holder and against the judgment-debtor. There was also originally another defendant, but he has since died and is now represented by the decree-holder.2. The suit was decided in the plaintiff's favour in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Berhampur, but on appeal it was dismissed with costs by the High Court of Calcutta. From the High Court's decree the present appeal has been preferred to His Majesty in Council.3. The judgment-debtor is Chhatrapat Singh Dugar, who is not inexperienced in litigation. Two decrees were passed against him in the High Court of Calcutta on its Original Side, one on the 24th August, 1896, in suit 449 of 1890, the other on the 3rd January, 1001, in suit No. 302 of 1900. The defendant, Raja Bijoy Singh Dudhuria, the purchaser at the execution sale, was a transferee of both d...
Tag this Judgment!Deonandan Prashad Singh Vs. Ramdhari Chowdhri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR437
Buckmaster, Chancellor1. The question in these appeals affects the right to mesne profits of certain lands which, by virtue of three different sets of judgments-first, two decrees of the Subordinate Judge on the 31st March, 1900; secondly, two decrees of the High Court at Calcutta on the 20th January, 1904; and thirdly, an Order in Council on the 25th January, 1908-have been alternately in the possession of Deonandan Prashad Singh and Baijnath Ram Goenka or their predeces-sors-in-title (hereafter, for convenience, called the appellants) Ramdhari Chowdhri and others or their predecessors-in-title (hereafter called the respondents), and, finally, of the appellants again. The explanation of this changing occupation is to be found in the nature of the proceedings in which those orders were made.2. On the 30th June. 1898, two suits were brought by the two predecessors of the appellants each claiming a right to preempt a half share in certain property known as Taluka Rasulpur Bhatowni, which...
Tag this Judgment!Moti Chand Vs. Khwaja Ikram-ul-lah Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR433
John Edge, J. 1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 24th May, 1911, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The suit was brought to recover damages for an alleged breach by the defendants of an agreement contained in a sale deed of the 2nd May, 1903, by which the defendants had agreed to execute and file a deed of relinquishment of their rights in their ' sir' lands in Mouza Khorant, Daulsapur and Bharthipur, in the district of Azamga'rh. The Mouzas in question are Mahals within the meaning of 'The North-Western Provinces Tenancy Act, 1901' (Act II of 1901).2. The defendants, who were the proprietors within the meaning of that Act of Mouza Khorant, Daulsapur and Bharthipur and had in those Mouzas considerable ' sir ' lands in their occupation to which the Act applied, by their deed of the 2nd May, 1903, transferred by sale to the plaintiffs the three Mouzas and all the ...
Tag this Judgment!Sripat Singh Dugar Vs. Maharaja Sir P.K. Tagore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR290
Buckmaster, Chancellor1. The point to be decided in this case is extremely simple and it is this: What was the extent of the estate that passed on the sale, under a decree of the Court of the 13th August, 1904, of 'the right, title and interest' of a judgment-debtor in certain property? There is no doubt whatever that all parties considered that the entire estate had been sold under the order. The price was based upon that hypothesis and the present appellants were so much impressed with this view that they instituted proceedings for the purpose of obtaining a declaration, that in the special circumstances of the case only one-third was properly liable to attachment. The grounds for that action were these : The property in question was joint property, governed by the Mitakshara law. By that law a judgment against the father of the family cannot be executed against the whole of the Mitakshara property, if the debt in respect of which the judgment has been obtained was a debt incurred fo...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »