Mumbai Court April 1917 Judgments
Lachhman Prasad Vs. Sarnam Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1917
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR646
Viscount Haldane, J. 1. In this case no difficult question of law arises and their Lordships are prepared to intimate at once the advice which they will tender to His Majesty upon the appeal.2. It is a suit with regard to a mortgage made on the 2st September, 1885, by three Hindus subject to the Mitakshara law, who joined in borrowing 1,200 rupees on the security of the property of the joint family of which they were the heads. There is nothing special in the terms of the mortgage, which do not go beyond what is stated. It is contended that although, according to the decisions of this Board, that mortgage is primd facie invalid, as being for neither an antecedent debt nor for any proven necessity of the joint family, it still may be held to be valid on the doctrine laid down by the High Court of Calcutta in the case of Mahabeer Persad v. Ramyad Singh (1873) 12 B.L.R. 90. There, the head of a joint family and his son, who was of age, united in attempting to raise money. There was a youn...
Tag this Judgment!Kawal NaIn Vs. Budh Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1917
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR642
Viscount Haldane, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Allahabad which reversed a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur. The question which arose was whether a mortgage of certain interests in land was valid, as contended by the appellants, who were the successors-in-title of the original mortgagee. The land had been the property of & joint family subject to Mitakshara law and the controversy turned on whether the respondent Prabhu Lal, the mortgagor, had separated from the joint family before executing the deed and so rendered himself competent to make a valid hypothecation of the interest which had come to him as a member of the joint family.2. Prior to the mortgage, which was dated the 28th August, 1890, the respondent Prabhu Lal had, on the 6th April, 1889, commenced a suit for partition. By his plaint he had claimed a fifth share of the family property and their Lordships entertain no doubt that the claim amounted to an intimation to the defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Kurgodigauda Lingangauda Vs. Ningangauda Ningangauda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom210; (1917)19BOMLR638; 41Ind.Cas.238
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. On the 4th of November 1901, a decree was passed by the trial Court at Dharwar for delivery to the plaintiff of certain lands. In execution of that decree the lands were delivered to the plaintiff. On an appeal preferred on behalf of the applicant, who was then a minor, the High Court amended the decree on the 17th of August 1903, by excepting from the decree for delivery two Survey Numbers. Those Survey Numbers, however, remained in the possession of the plaintiff and the applicant attained majority on the 1st of October 1912. On the 4th of August 1914, the present application was made for delivery to him of the two Survey Numbers excepted by the judgment of the High Court in appeal from the scope of the decree of the trial Court. The application which is one which the applicant would be entitled to make under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure is barred by time, unless it is an application for the execution of a decree within the meaning of Section 6 ...
Tag this Judgment!Doongersey Lakhmidas Vs. Keshavji Meghji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom34; (1917)19BOMLR878; 43Ind.Cas.258
Beaman, J.1. The facts of the present case are that the plaintiff is the lessor and the defendant the lessee of a godown in Baroda Street near Carnac Bunder. The godown was originally owned by one Mr. Pavri under a lease from the Port Trust commencing from the year 1883 which passed through various hands in the meantime. In 1910, Mr. Pavri leased this godown to the defendant for a term of five years, the said term beginning from the 1st of May 1911. The lease itself appears to be dated in 1910. In 1912, Pavri transferred his lease to the present plaintiff, Doongersey Lakhmidas. Under the rules governing all leases given by the Port Trust on the transfer of leasehold interest it is necessary to satisfy the Port Trust that any buildings on the land demised are in good and tenantable condition. Thus at the time of the transfer, in 1912, the godown, which is now the subject of this litigation, was examined by the Port Trust engineers, directions given and apparently obeyed and the transfer...
Tag this Judgment!Kurgodigouda BIn Lingangouda Vs. Ningangouda BIn Ningangouda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR41Bom625
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. On the 4 th of November 1901, a decree was passed by the trial Court at Dharwar for delivery to the plaintiff of certain lands. In execution of that decree the lands were delivered to the plaintiff. On an appeal preferred on behalf of the applicant, who was then a minor, the High Court amended the decree on the 17th of August 1903 by excepting from the decree for delivery two survey numbers. Those survey numbers, however, remained in the possession of the plaintiff, and the applicant attained majority on the 1st of October 1912. On the 4th of August 1914 the present application was made for delivery to him of the two survey numbers excepted by the judgment of the High Court in appeal from the scope of the decree of the trial Court. The application which is one which the applicant would be entitled to make under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure is barred by time, unless it is an application for the execution of a decree within the meaning of Section 6 ...
Tag this Judgment!Chanbasappa BIn Dodappa Desai Vs. Kaliandappa BIn Ayappa Desai and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1917
Reported in: (1917)ILR41Bom728
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The property to which this appeal relates is chiefly Vatan property which consists of Deshgat and Gaudki or Patilki Vatans. It also relates to certain non-Vatan property specified in Schedule C to the plaint. Until his death in or about 1878 the property was held by Dodappa Desai. He left two widows and a daughter but no son. In 1880 Malkamma the senior widow adopted a son Madivallappa and the Collector in consequence entered the name of Madivallappa as holder of both classes of Vatans.2. In or about 1886, on the application of Malkamma, Madivallappa's name was removed from the Deshgat Vatan Register on the ground that he was not a Bhauband of Dodappa in whom under the Sanad the Deshgat Vatan would vest. Prior to this event Malkamma had been appointed legal guardian of Madivallappa's property under Act XX of 1864 and managed both classes of Vatan property till after his death a minor in 1895. He left a widow who became entitled on his death as his heir and was ...
Tag this Judgment!Chanbasappa Dodappa Desai Vs. Kalianadappa Ayappa Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.845
1. The property to which this appeal relates is chiefly vatan property which consists of Deshgat and Gaudki of Patilki vataus. This appeal also relates to certain non-vatan property specified in Schedule C to the plaint. Until his death in or about 1878 the property was held by Dodappa Desai. He left two widows and a daughter but no son. In 1880 Malkamma the senior widow adopted a son Madivallappa and the Collector in consequence entered the name of Madivallappa as holder of both classes of vatans.2. In or about 1886, on the application, of Malkamma, Madivallappa's name was removed from the Dashgat vatan register on the ground that he was not a bhauband of Dodappa in whom under the sanad the Deshgat vatan would vest. Prior to this event Malkamma had been appointed legal guardian of Madivallappa's property under Act XX of 1864 and managed both classes of vatan] property till after his death a minor in 1895. He left a widow who became entitled on his death as his heir, and was. entered a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Basappa Shivappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1917
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR535; 41Ind.Cas.100
Batchelor, J.1. It appears to me that the rule here must be made absolute and that the learned Judge's order directing the prosecution of this applicant for an offence under Section 206 of the Indian Penal Code must be set aside.2. The matter arises in this way: In Suit No. 51 of 1915 a certain money-lender made a claim for money against three brothers on the footing that the money had been lent for the benefit of the family and that the brothers were joint. The present applicant was one of these three brothers and he was defendant No. 2 in the suit. He pleaded that he was not liable inasmuch as he was separate in estate from the other defendants and that plea was upheld by the Court, which dismissed the suit against the present applicant, though it decreed the claim against the other defendants. Then Suit No. 11 of 1916 was brought against the present applicant for the price of certain cotton sold, the plaintiff's averring that the present applicant was their Agent for sale. The prese...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Manuel Philip
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1917
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR527
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction recorded by the First Class Magistrate of Bandra and confirmed on appeal before the Sessions Judge of Thana. The applicants have been convicted of being members of an unlawful assembly under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code and of mischief under Section 426 of the Penal Code in that they with common intent to cause wrongful loss to the complainant pulled up certain fishing stakes which he had put down in the sea at a distance of five or six miles beyond low water-mark.2. On the merits it is contended by Mr, Gupte that no offence is proved to have been committed inasmuch as the applicants were protected by the existence of a certain custom among these fishermen, which had been infringed by the complainant. It appears to me, however, that on this point the finding of the learned Sessions Judge puts the defence out of Court. For the finding is that this violent uprooting of the complainant's stakes had nothing to ...
Tag this Judgment!Narottam Morarji Gokaldas Vs. the Indian Specie Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom132; (1917)19BOMLR615; 41Ind.Cas.261
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The first plaintiff, through his three nominees, the 2nd, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs, was the owner of 161 shares-in the Indian Specie Bank. In the month of April 1913, upon instructions from the 1st plaintiff, the share certificates and blank transfers executed by the nominal registered holders-of the shares were handed to the Managing Director of the Specie Bank who undertook to sell the shares on commission. The Managing Director, in the month of May, paid in respect of the shares a sum of Rs. 10,500 which would be approximately the equivalent of the net sale-proceeds of the shares at Rs. 66 per share; and he represented that the shares had been sold at that figure. The Specie Bank went into liquidation in or about the month of December 1913. The 2nd, 3rd and 4th plaintiffs were thereafter placed upon list A of contributories in respect of the said shares standing in their name on behalf of the 1st plaintiff, on the ground that they remained registered share-hol...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »