Mumbai Court September 1916 Judgments
Ganesh Narayan Khare Vs. Gopal Vishnu Apte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom61; (1917)19BOMLR75
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The claim of the plaintiff's in this suit is to redeem and recover the plaint property. They allege that the plaintiff No. 1 (since deceased) mortgaged the property with possession to defendant No. 1 by a deed dated the 7th September 1888 and that the cause of action arose in September 1893. The defendants admit the mortgage, but say that in 1902 the right of redemption was sold in execution of a decree of one Mahadeo Vithal Lagu and was purchased by one Eaghunath Krishna Tilak from whom it was purchased by the defendant No. 1 on the 20th December 1902.2. The learned trial Judge finds that in 1897 the 1st defendant brought a suit against the mortgagor for a claim independent of the mortgage and obtaining a decree assigned it to Mahadeo Vithal Lagu. Lagu, in execution, attached the equity of redemption in the mortgaged property. The purchaser at the auction sale was Eaghunath Krishna Tilak and Eaghunath in the same year transferred his right to the 1st defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Naro Gopal Kulkarni Vs. Paragowda Basagowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom130; (1917)19BOMLR69
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was instituted by the plaintiff's as members of a joint Hindu family of which their father the 2nd defendant was the head to set aside a sale of certain family land being Survey No. 722 measuring 19 acres and 11 gunthas executed by the defendants in favour of defendant 1 on the 19th of September 1901 and to recover possession thereof from the 1st defendant or in the alternative for their 2/3rd share therein by partition or at least for joint possession with the defendant; 1: they alleged that the sale deed was taken from the defendant 2 by undue influence and for no consideration. The learned Judge of the trial Court held that the consideration for the deed was an antecedent debt which though barred by time was acknowledged by the registered sale-deed and further advances aggregating Rs. 1,500 which he held established. He held that even the antecedent debt would authorise an alienation by the father bindjng on the sons and he dismissed the suit with ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulalli BadrudIn Vs. Eanchodlal Trikamlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR86
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 11,817-14-6, with further interest at six per cent, from date of suit until realization, and costs from the estate of the defendants, being the parties interested in the firm of Farjulla Nurbhai, a dissolution of which had been decreed by the Court at Godhra in a partnership suit in the year 1909. The claim was based upon an original liability of the firm of Farjulla Nurbhai to the plaintiffs' father Tricumlal Damodardas for Rs. 9,826 which is found credited in the firm's books to Tricumlal Damodardas under date Shravan Vad 3rd 1950, and debited in the firm's accounts of Farjulla Nurbhai. The details of the cash entry show that it was paid on account of the Ras or joint account of four persons Tricumlal Damodar and Jalalbhai Karmulabhai and Sulemanjj. Lukmanji and Badruddin Sarafali. That was a joint account in which Tricumlal Damodar and Jalalbhai Karmulabhai. were entitled to the 1/4th share each, and Sulemanji Lukmanji and B...
Tag this Judgment!Nivajkhan Nathankhan Vs. Dadabhai Musse Valli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom125(1); (1916)18BOMLR973
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover Rs. 219-14-0 as due upon two rent-notes, dated respectively the 27th June, 1909 and the 10th July, 1910, the dates fixed for payment of the rent being the 13^ March 1910 and the and March 1911, respectively. The suit was not brought until the year 1915, but the plaintiff alleged that part payments of Rs. 15 had been made by the defendant. The part payments were recorded by endorsements which the plaintiff admitted were in his hand-writing, but he contended that the endorsement being signed by the defendant was a sufficient acknowledgment within Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act. That section provides that ' a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made, provided that in the case of part-payment of the principal of a debt. the fact of the payment appears in the hand-writing of the person making the same.' Now, in these endorsements, the fact of the payment appears in the h...
Tag this Judgment!Motibhai Jijibhai Vs. Desaibhai Gokalbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom59; (1916)18BOMLR976
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The facts of this case are shortly that one Chatur, being the registered Khatedar of certain unalienated lands which were subject to the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, executed a rajinama in the year 1904, in which he stated to the Mamlatdar that he had relinquished the khata of the Survey numbers in favour of Desaibhai Gokulbhai, and requested that the necessary mutation of flames should be made in the records. Desaibhai Gokujbhai, on the same day, namely, the nth August 1964, executed a kabulayat to the Mamlatdar undertaking to pay the land revenue that might become due from time to time in respect of that khata, and prayed that his name might be entered in the Government records as the registered Khatedar.2. The lower appellate Court has found that Chatur intended to abandon all his interest in favour of Desaibhai, and that that was his intention in passing the rajinama. '''Notwithstanding these transactions, Chatur, in 1911, purported to sell the same...
Tag this Judgment!Raghavendra Raoji Kathawate Vs. Yalgurad Ramchandra Padki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom189; (1917)19BOMLR67
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The District Judge here has reversed the decree of the learned Judge of trial, because in the District Judge's view of the question of law it was not open to the defendant to urge by way of set off the claim which he did urge, that is to say, the claim that the amount of pay due to him by the plaintiff should be reckoned against the sum due to the plaintiff by him on the accounts. The District Judge's view was that the plaintiff and the defendant did not till the same character in regard to the attempted set-off as they tilled in the suit and therefore Rule 6 of Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code could not be applied., But looking to the illustrations of this rule and in particular comparing illustrations (a) and (b) with illustration (e), it appears to us that the District Judge has misunderstood the provisions of the law. It is quite true to say that in regard to the plaintiffs' suit the plaintiffs' claim is based upon an account for goods su...
Tag this Judgment!Dadabhai Musse Valli Vs. Niwajkhan Nathankhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR41Bom166
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recover Rs. 219-14-0 as due upon two rent notes, dated respectively the 27th June 1909 and the 10th July 1910, the dates fixed for payment of the rent being the 13th March 1910 and the 2nd March 1911, respectively. The suit was not brought until the year 1915, but the plaintiff alleged that part payments of Rs. 15 had been made by the defendant. The part payments were recorded by endorsements which the plaintiff admitted were in his hand writing, but he contended that the endorsement being signed by the defendant was a sufficient acknowledgment within Section 20 of the Limitation Act. That section provides that 'a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made, provided that, in the case of part payment of the principal of a debt, the fact of the payment appears in the handwriting of the person making the same.' Now, in these endorsements, the fact of the payment appears in the handwritin...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Vinayak Joshi Vs. Sitabai Narayan Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom143; (1916)18BOMLR950
Beaman, J.1. This case has occasioned us much difficulty, partly because the pleadings in themselves are very far from precise, partly because on a first view the issues seem to throw the onus upon the wrong party and partly because both the learned Judges, who have dealt with the case, being versed in matters of this kind, particularly Mr. Saldanha who has exceptional knowledge and experience of Inam and Khoti cases have apparently felt no doubt or difficulty whatever, in deciding in favour of the plaintiff. It is true that the trial Judge, in order to elucidate the pleadings, felt obliged to examine both the plaintiff and the defendant, and we understand the process of his reasoning upon that additional material to have been something of this kind. The plaintiff is admittedly one of two Inamdars of the village in which the land is situated. The land in suit is admittedly land upon which the Government Judi has been calculated, and it appears to be virtually an admitted principle, or ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxminarayan Ramdayal Vs. Chimniram Girdharilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom103; (1916)18BOMLR946
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. In this appeal the only question which it is necessary to consider is the question whether the letter, Exh. 33, ought to be held to have been admitted. For if Exh. 33 is held to be admitted, then it is clear that the plaintiffs' suit is not exposed to the bar of limitation. Now the suit was brought to recover a sum of money on an account stated, and with regard to the question of limitation, the matter was put by the plaintiffs in the following language in paragraphs 4 and 5 of their plaint: ' As mentioned in the special extracts the defendants have given the vasul in respect of the dealings and, at last, have sent a vasul of Rs. 160 on the 13th May 1910 and the defendants sent their firm's letter to the plaintiffs, dated the 12th May 1910 mentioning that vasul. This suit of the plaintiffs is filed after three years subsequen t to the date of the last transaction. But the plaintiffs' suit is in time on account of the vasul given by the defendants a...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Blanchi Constant Cripps
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR934
Beaman, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of two women by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad. The offences with which they were charged were under Sections 317 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The facts, which are undisputed, are that the younger of the two accused persons, a girl of fourteen, became pregnant while still unmarried, and in order to conceal her shame from her parents with the connivance of the elder of the two accused, her sister, she was conveyed to the Civil Hospital of Ahmedabad where she was safely delivered of a child. As soon as she was sufficiently recovered the two sisters agreed that it would be advisable to Dispose of the child secretly. Accordingly, the young mother handed the child to her elder sister who carried it by train to Mahomedabad where she left it in a Second Class compartment. The child was carefully wrapped up and a bottle of milk was left by its side, so that as soon as it was discovered by any one there sho...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »