Mumbai Court July 1916 Judgments
K. Venkatrao Sethupathy Vs. Khimji Assur Virji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1916
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR535
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs who are mortgagees of the land, building and machinery of a Mill situate at Bellary under a mortgage of December 18, 1912, in the English form, have obtained the usual mortgage decree against the mortgagors, providing that on the defendants or any of them paying into Court on behalf of the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 1,11,302-12-6 for debt and interest thereon at the rate of six per cent, from January 1, 1916, with six monthly rests until payment and the costs of this suit when taxed and noted in the margin together with interest on such costs at six per cent, per annum from the date thereof till payment, the plaintiff do reconvey to the defendants the property in the mortgage comprised free and clear of and from all incumbrances done by the plaintiff or any person or persons claiming by, from or under him, and if default shall be made by the defendants in paying into Court such principal, interest and costs by the time named, then the plaintiff wil...
Tag this Judgment!Jhanda Singh Vs. Sheikh Wahid-ud-din
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR1
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated the 11th March, 1911, of the High Court of Judicature for the North Western Provinces, affirming the decree dated the 27th March, 1908, of the Additional Judge for Meerut.2. The question for decision is whether two instruments in writing, the first, a deed dated the 29th August, 1852, executed by the appellant's predecessors in title and the second, an agreement dated the 5th September, 1852, executed by the predecessors in title of the principal respondents constituted when taken together a bai-bil-wafa mortgage of the property in the first-mentioned instrument described, that is, a mortgage by way of conditional sale, or an out-and-out sale of the property with a contract for repurchase. The Additional Judge of Meerut held that the documents constituted the latter. On appeal to the High Court, the two members who constituted the Court, Sir John Stanley, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Banerji, were divided in opinion : t...
Tag this Judgment!Tangya Fala Vs. Trimbak Daga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom302; (1916)18BOMLR700; 35Ind.Cas.794
Batchelor, J.1. In 1893, the property in suit and certain other properties were mortgaged by their owner Daga Lahnu to one Atmaram to secure a sum of Rs. 2,250. In 1904, the mortgagee, Atmaram, brought a suit on his mortgage and obtained a decree for payment of Rs. 2,247 and costs within six months, or in default, the sale of the property. On the 12th June 1905, Atmaram as decree-holder presented an application for sale of the mortgaged property. This application was transferred for execution to the Collector. On the 27 th June 1905, the present second defendant, in execution of a money decree which he had obtained against Daga, brought the property to sale and purchased it himself. On the 13th April 1907, in execution of Atmaram's decree on the mortgage, the Collector put the property to sale. Thereupon Daga Lahnu, who was the first defendant in the suit, borrowed a sum of Rs. 2,463 from the plaintiff in order to pay off Atmaram's decretal amount, and, with the money so borrowed from ...
Tag this Judgment!Narhar Damodar Vaidya Vs. Bhau Moreshwar Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom206(2); (1916)18BOMLR744; 36Ind.Cas.539
Batchelor, J.1. The question before us is whether the Vyavahara Mayukha or the Mitakshara is, upon a point of disputed succession, the predominant authority in the town of Mahad in the Kolaba District. That question arises in this way. The property involved in the litigation belonged to one Narayan, and on his death was inherited by his sister Kashibai, who, under the law of this Presidency, took an absolute estate. Kashibai, dying, left a son and a daughter, and the controversy is as to which of these two is the preferential heir. Under the Mitakshara, the daughter, and under the Mayukha, the son. would be preferred. The present appellant, who was the plaintiff below, claims as a purchaser from the son of Kashibai and contends for the paramount authority of the Mayukha. The contention has been disallowed both in the lower appellate Court and in the trial Court, where the learned Subordinate Judge, Mr. Sabnis, has written a well-considered judgment. Geographically the town of Mahad is ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja of Bobbili Vs. Sree Rajah Narasaraya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR909
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, date a the 2nd May, 1912, of the High Court at Madras, which affirmed an order dated the 25th October, 1910, of the District Judge of Vizagapatam dismissing an application of the 27th April, 1910, for the execution of a decree of the 5th April 1904, on the ground that the application was time-barred when it was made. The question as to whether the application of the 27th April, 1910, was barred by limitation depends on whether a previous application for the execution of the decree which had been made on the 13th December, 1907, was made to the proper Court within the meaning of Article 17901' the second schedule of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. The period of limitation applicable in this case was three years from the date of applying in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution, or to take some step-in-aid of execution of the decree. The respondents have not appeared and have not been represented in this appeal. The facts,...
Tag this Judgment!Marshall and Co. Vs. Naginchand Fulchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1917Bom182; (1916)18BOMLR915
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiffs, Messrs. Marshall & Co. of Glasgow, sue the defendants, Naginchand Fulchand, a firm upon accepted bills of exchange drawn by the plaintiffs upon the defendants in respect of two cargoes shipped on the Hansa Line' Barenfels' and Hansa Line 'Kybfels '-terms C.I.F.C.I., goods Aluminium circles-date of shipment on ' Barenfels' 15th July 1914-date of shipment on 'Kybfels', 25th July 1914.2. The plaintiffs' general allegation for the purposes of this suit is that they were never principals but merely defendants' agents for the purpose of these goods. That was not the form in which they originally brought the suit, and there cannot be the least doubt that they have had recourse to this line of attack as the result of a judgment recently delivered by the Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court. In my opinion, after hearing Mr. Binning's argument upon this point, the alternative case is entirely without foundation. I cannot discern any feature of agency or in the least ...
Tag this Judgment!Diwakar Vs. Chandanlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR992
Parmoor, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the late Mahipat Rao Bhau adopted the appellant Diwakar as his son, and heir to the Hatta Zamindari on the 10th November 1898. If the adoption did take place, the adoptive father could not subsequently revoke the adoption. It is not argued that he had any such power.2. The appellant was born on the 26th October, 1898, and was the second son of Indraraj Bhau Mahipat Rao was a relation on the agnatic side and had had eight children by his deceased wife, all of whom had died in infancy, except Gotoo, who died in 1894 aged about I6.' At the time of the alleged adoption Mahipat Rao had two young wives, one married in 1891, and one in 1895, There was no reason why he might not have further issue; two children were in fact born to him at a later date. Both Indraraj and Mahipat Rao were Zamindars of considerable position.3. There was no deed of adoption and the case for the appellant depends almost entirely on oral testimony. The...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmipatirao Shrinivas Deshpande Vs. Venkatesh Tirmal Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom68; (1917)19BOMLR23
Shah, J.1. It is necessary in this case to state briefly the facts out of which the present second appeal arises.2. One Venkappa had four sons, Melgirappa, Konappa, Ramappa and Gurappa. These four brothers were divided many years ago. Ramappa, the third Son of Venkappa, had a son Hanmappa; and the fourth son Gurappa had two sons, one of whom was Kristappa. Kristappa had two sons Lakshmipati-rao and Hanmappa. This Hanmappa was adopted by Ramappa's son Hanmappa. He (the adopted son of Hanmappa) had a son Shriniwasrao and two daughters by his first wife Gangabai and one daughter by his second wife also named Gangabai. Lakshmipatirao had no male issue and is said to have taken Shriniwasrao in adoption in the year in 1846. It is the adoption of Shriniwasrao that is in dispute in this litigation. Lakshmipatirao died in 1846 leaving a widow Lakshmibai and the boy Shriniwasrao. Hanmappa, the natural father of Shriniwasrao, died in 1852, leaving a young widow Gangabai (his second wife) and thre...
Tag this Judgment!Murtaza HusaIn Khan Vs. Mohammad YasIn Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR884
Ameer Ali, J.1. The facts of this case are fully set out in the judgments of the Judicial Commissioners of Oudh, from whose decree dismissing the plaintiff's claim this appeal is preferred; their Lordships are thus relieved of the necessity of referring to them at any length.2. The suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sultanpur to recover from the defendant, the Talukdar of Deogaon, in the district of Fyzabad, a half-share of certain non-Talukdari property to which the plaintiff claims to be entitled by right of inheritance under the Mahomedan law.3. At the time of the annexation of Oudh the Taluka of Deogaon was found to be in the possession of one Babu Jamshed Ali Khan under a firman of the deposed King, bearing date the 23 rd Shaban, 1271, corresponding with the nth May, 1855. On the 30th December, 1858, a summary settlement of this property was made with him by the British Government. The kabulayat, or engagement for the payment of revenue, executed by Jamshed ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Raza Vs. Saiyid Abid Husain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR904
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh, for the redemption of an usufructuary mortgage alleged to have been created in 1857 in respect of a twelve annas share in the village of Malgaon. The document on which they rely to establish the mortgage is a certified copy of a petition of compromise filed in Court on the Ist of April, 1857. It is not disputed that the record of the proceedings in which this petition was filed, was destroyed in the Mutiny, which broke out shortly after. The certified copy is, however, admissible in evidence relative to the facts recited therein, and was rightly admitted by the Subordinate Judge. The question for determination in this appeal is, however, whether if the petition is to be treated as creating the mortgage, it was properly stamped in accordance with the Indian Statute then in force to entitle the plaintiffs t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »