Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1917)19BOMLR737
Buckmaster, Chancellor1. In April 1867 Bakhshi Bishnu Narain died, leaving four sons, whose names in order of birth are: Raj Narain, Ram Narain, Bakht Narain and Suraj Narain. The family was a Hindu joint family, governed by the Mitakshara law and possessing ancestral property. Accordingly, upon his father's death the eldest son, Raj Narain, became Karta and so continued until his death in August 1890. His brother, Ram Narain, then succeeded and acted as Karta until his death in October 1900. Disputes then arose between Bakht Narain and Suraj Narain as to Bakht Narain's claim to be registered as Karta and as to their rights and the rights of their respective sons in the joint family properties. Some arrangement and reconciliation of this family quarrel, though one neither firm nor durable, seems to have been effected, but disputes broke out again with regard to the property and four suits were instituted on the 3rd November, 1903, by Bakht Narain and a fifth suit in 1905 by Suraj Narai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1917Bom275; (1917)19BOMLR274
Macleod, J.1. This suit was with the leave of the Court withdrawn by the plaintiffs on the 3rd July 1916 with permission to file a fresh suit in England, the Court ordering the plaintiffs to pay to the 1st and 2nd defendants, who were separately represented, their respective costs of the suit when taxed.2. The second defendants' costs were taxed at Rs. 1259-15-0.3. On the 12th December 1916, the 2nd defendants obtained an order for the arrest of the partners of the plaintiff-firm under Order XXI, Rule 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure in execution of the decree.4. One of the partners of the plaintiff-firm was arrested under Section 55 of the Code on the 14th December 1916 when he paid to the Sheriff's bailiff the amount with the costs of execution and Sheriff's poundage, amounting in all to Rs. 1408-13-1 and was released under the 4th proviso in that section.5. The 1st defendants had, previously, on the 8th February 1916, issued execution against the plaintiffs under an order of the Co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1917)19BOMLR471
Sumner, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover proprietary possession with mesne profits of a twelve-anna share in Mouza Hansi Mau, in the district of Cawnpore. They are members of a joint Hindu family, the Tewaris, governed by Mitakshara law and claim this Mouza as part of their undivided property. The circumstances are such that the plaintiff's right, if any, has not been barred by adverse possession and lapse of time. It is convenient to speak of one defendant, Suraj Kunwar, though there are others, his vendees. The property is small; it seems to yield 500 rupees per annum, but it has been fought for at prodigious length and cost.2. In the first instance the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs, but they produced a conveyance, dated the 3rd August, 1863, under which the property in question was conveyed on sale to Musammat Baboo Kunwar, guardian of her son Suraj Parshad, then a minor, both being members of the Tewari family. There was also evidence that the purchase consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1917)19BOMLR462
Parker, J.1. This is a consolidated appeal from decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William, in Bengal, made in twenty suits, each of which, though relating to a distinct subject-matter, raised substantially the same questions of law. Each suit was in substance a suit to recover possession from the appellant, who is the registered proprietor of extensive Zemindaries in the Birbhum District of Bengal, of Chowkidari Chakeran lands recently resumed by Government and transferred to him under the provisions of Act VI of 1870 of the Bengal Council. The plaintiff in each suit was the Putnidar or Dar-putnidar of the village within the boundaries of which the lands the subject of the suit were situate. In those suits in which the Dar-putni-dar was the plaintiff, the Putnidar was made a defendant, but took no part in the, argument. The decree in each suit was in favour of the plaintiff and against the appellant.2. Their Lordships consider it unnecessary to deal at further length with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1917)19BOMLR456
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated the 18th January, 1910, which reversed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram, dated the 6th November, 1907.2. The object of the suit is for the recovery of monies advanced under mortgage, and, in the event of default, for the sale of the hypothecated properties. The properties were those of the mutt, to be presently mentioned. The defence in substance is, that the loan over these properties, although granted by the head of the institution, was not granted in respect of any necessity of the mutt itself, which necessity falls to be proved.3. The Dharmapurm Adhinam, or mutt is situated in the Madras Presidency. It is one of some importance, being a religious institution consisting of a group of religious houses, having various temples and other property and endowments yielding a considerable revenue. The head of the institution is known as the Pandara Sannadhi. The transaction...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1917)19BOMLR281
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. Subaya Devappa Hegde who was the senior member of a family of judgment-debtors put in an application before the Subordinate Judge claiming that a house attached in execution should not be sold by reason of the provisions of Section 60(c) of the Civil Procedure Code as he was an agriculturist. The first Court decided against the judgment-debtor. An appeal was preferred by him to the District Judge who (referring to all the judgment-debtors including the appellant) says ' the defendants now live solely by agricultural labour. They have no lands either as owners or tenants. They work for others. They continue to live in the house, which is their ancestral house, from the time when they held lands of their own. They have ceased to be agriculturists (farmers of land) in the ordinary sense of the term and have become mere agricultural labourers. 'The term ' agriculturist,' as used in Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, is not defined in that Act and the question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1917)ILR41Bom475
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. Subaya Devappa Hegde who was the senior member of a family of judgment-debtors put in an application before the Subordinate Judge claiming that a house attached in execution should not be sold by reason of the provisions of Section 60(c) of the Civil Procedure Code as he was an agriculturist. The first Court decided against the judgment-debtor. An appeal was preferred by him to the District Judge who (referring to all the judgment-debtors including the appellant) says 'the defendants now live solely by agricultural labour. They have no lands either as owners or tenants. They work for others. They continue to live in the house, which is their ancestral house, from the time when they held lands of their own. They have ceased to be agriculturists (farmers of land) in the ordinary sense of the term, and have become mere agricultural labourers.' The term 'agriculturist, 'as used in Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, is not defined in that Act, and the question ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1917)ILR41Bom466
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain property, Survey Nos. 535 and 545, and to have a perpetual injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from taking possession of Survey No. 544 and from using the water of the well, alleging that his father left two brothers out of whom one Chaganlal died in 1897 leaving no issue, while the other brother died in union with him the plaintiff in 1905, that defendant No. 3 and he were heirs in joint undivided property under Hindu Law, and that defendant No. 1, the widow of Girdharlal, the uncle who died in 1905, had only a right of maintenance, and he sought to set aside a sale which had been made in favour of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1, Girdharlal's widow.2. The plaintiff's case therefore rested upon an allegation that the property in suit was the property of an undivided Hindu family. Now with regard to Survey No. 535, there is evidence which both the Courts have found to be conclusive, that Girdharlal was i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 40Ind.Cas.83
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain property, Survey Nos. 535 and 545, and to have a perpetual injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from taking possession of Survey No. 544 and from using the water of the well alleging that his father left two brothers out of whom one Chhaganlal died in 1897 leaving no issue, while the other brother died in union with him, the plaintiff, in 1905, that defendant No. 3 and he were heirs in joint undivided property under Hindu Law, and that defendant No. 1, the widow of Girdharlal, the uncle who died in 1905, had only a right of maintenance, and he sought to set aside a sale which had been made in favour of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1, Girdharlal's widow.2. The plaintiff's case, therefore, rested upon an allegation that the property in suit was the property of an undivided Hindu family. Now with regard to Survey No. 535, there is evidence, which both the Courts have found to be conclusive, that Girdharlal was i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1917Bom274; (1917)19BOMLR285
Batchelor, J.1. The question before us is as to the construction of a lease with reference to the provisions of the Registration Act, Section 17, Sub-section 1 (d); in other words, the point to be decided is whether this particular lease is compulsorily registrable as being a lease of immoveable pro perty from'year to year or for any term exceeding one year.2. The trial Court held that the lease was compulsorily registrable under this section, but the learned Joint Judge has taken the other view.3. The rent note which witnesses the lease of the property is in the following words :-We have taken these three fields for cultivation from you yearly (dur salne mate) on condition that we are to pay the assessment. We shall go on paying the assessment to Government so long as you give us the fields for cultivation. In consideration of this we are to have the produce of Nos. 167 and 199. As regards No. 173 we will give you half of whatever the produce may he. We have taken the land for cultiva...
Tag this Judgment!