Mumbai Court January 1918 Judgments
Bapuji Narayan Chitnis Vs. Bhagvant Balwant Chitnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom153(1); (1918)20BOMLR346; 45Ind.Cas.550
Beaman, J.1. The point taken before us is that although the plaintiffs have been hold by both the Courts not to have proved any title, still the fact that they were once in possession within twelve years of suit throws the onus of proving good title on the defendants. Doubtless there is some case-law authority which might be construed into supporting such a proposition. We, however, prefer to follow the simple Jaw established ever since the English Courts settled any principles of law at all that in a suit in ejectment the plaintiff must prove good title and that there is no onus on the defendant to prove title relatively good or bad at all. Here the plaintiffs have attempted to prove title and have proved some years' possession, But it needs twelve full years to make title. Both the Courts have found that the plaintiffs have no title. It is not disputed that that finding of fact is binding upon us, and we are unable to see how in the face of it any relief can be decreed to the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Shidaya Virbhadraya Kodlimath Vs. Satappa Bharmappa Mutgauda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom187; (1918)20BOMLR360; 45Ind.Cas.494
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal in execution, and the only question involved is whether the application to execute is barred by time. The decree was obtained on the 28th October 1899, and was followed by three Darkhasts, all of which must, for the purposes of this appeal, be taken to have been made within the time allowed. The fourth and present Darkhast is dated the 23rd August 1913, that is, more than twelve years after the decree. The delay, however, is sought to be excused in this way. The suit was governed by the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and on the 1st of July 1911, the appellant, the judgment-creditor, applied for a conciliator's certificate, as under the Act he was then bound to do. He did not get the certificate till the 29th March 1913, and the only question to be answered in the appeal is whether under Section 48 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, he is entitled to exclude this interval of time occupied in obtaining this certificate....
Tag this Judgment!Raoji Bhikaji Kondkar Vs. Anant Laxman Kondkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom175; (1918)20BOMLR671
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. At some time before 1900 one Bhikaji died, leaving a widow Yeshodabai, the 2nd defendant in the suit. Bhikaji left also two sons, Kaoji, the 1st defendant, and Laxman, who died in 1900. Laxman's son Anant was the plaintiff'. The suit was brought for partition and possession of the plaintiff's one-half share in the estate of Bhikaji. The properties involved are partly moveable and partly immoveable. Of the various defences raised, we are concerned only with that which was embodied in the fifth issue in the Court of trial. That issue raised the question whether the second defendant, that is, the widow Yeshodabai, was entitled to a third share in the family property. The learned trial Judge answered that question in the affirmative, and accordingly he decreed to the plaintiff' a one-third share only, and not a half. That decree was a preliminary decree, and was made, on the 27th October 1913. Before any final decree could be passed, that is to say, on...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanbhai M. Nilkanth Vs. Ghashiram Ladliprasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom153(2); (1918)20BOMLR692
Beaman, J.1. I think that the applicant's case in respect of the 100 preference shares cannot be distinguished in any essential from Roger's case (In re Universal Banking Company (1868) L.R. 3 Ch. 633. There Rogers desired to become the local agent of the Company and was told by the Company's Agent that before being so appointed he must take up 100 shares. He accordingly applied for 100 shares, the Agent at the same time writing to the Directors and stating the condition. Presently Rogers found that he was unable to pay the deposits and in consequence the Directors declined to appoint him local agent. Upon these facts it was held that there had been a conditional application, and if the allotment had likewise been conditional the condition had not been fulfilled; and if it had been unconditional, then there was no agreement between the parties. Sir William Page Wood L.J. said that to constitute a binding agreement of this kind there must be an application, an allotmeat and notice of al...
Tag this Judgment!Hardit Singh Vs. Gurmukh Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR1064
Buckmaster, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the appellants have an interest jointly with the respondents in a village known as Bhagsar.2. In the proceedings, out of which the appeal has arisen, the appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants, and in that suit the two material issues were, first, whether the property in question was part of a joint family estate, and, secondly, if it were, whether the plaintiffs, who were members of the family, had lost their right by abandonment, acquiescence, or adverse possession. The finding of the two Courts that the property was originally joint is not challenged, and the only question is that raised by the second issue. Upon this the Subordinate Judge of Ferozepore found in favour of the appellants, and his judgment was reversed by the Chief Court of the Punjab. In considering the soundness of this latter judgment it is important to bear in mind certain facts with regard to the possession of joint property, ...
Tag this Judgment!Himatlal Maganlal Shah Vs. Bhikabhai Amritlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom283; (1918)20BOMLR403; 45Ind.Cas.422
Beaman, J.1. The only substantial point with which we are called upon to deal is whether the lower appellate Court was right in granting the plaintiff an accessory easement, the extent of which is unfortunately not defined in the decretal portion of his judgment. The plaintiff is admittedly entitled to an easement of discharging water upon the defendant's land from eaves which project, as we are told here, although we do not discover this on the record, from throe to five inches in length. This probably is about the fact, if not absolutely accurate. On the strength of this easement the plaintiff asked the Court below to give him an injunction, restraining the defendant from making any use of his land which would prevent the plaintiff from going upon it for all the purposes of repairing the wall of his house abutting thereon. The first Court refused this injunction, and in my opinion very rightly refused it. I entirely agree with the reasons given and the characterisation of the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Dhondiram Chatrabhuj Marwadi Vs. Sadasuk Savatram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom211; (1918)20BOMLR464
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The plaintiff, who is a Marwadi, resident in the territories of His Exalted Highness the Nizam, sued the defendant, a Marwadi, resident in British India, on a promissory note dated the 21st of August 1913. The suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Male-gaon in the Nasik District. The promissory note is stamped with the stamp which would have been required in British India. The note was executed in Hyderabad State, and does not bear the stamp which is required by the laws of that State. On this ground the defendant has claimed that the suit will not lie in the British Indian Court, and he has succeeded in this contention in the lower Court of appeal. It appears to me that the learned Judge below was wrong in the view which he took upon this point, and that the question is settled for us by the decision in Bristow v. Sequeville (1850) 5 Exch. 275. There Rolfe B., in delivering the judgment of the Court, said: 'I agree that if for ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nagindas Chhabildas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR388
Shah, J.1. The point raised in support of this application is that the putting up of the shop-board by the applicant was duly authorised under Sub-section 1 of Section 113 and was therefore exempt from punishment either under Section 122 or under Section 113 of the Bombay District Municipalities Act of 1901. It is argued that it was duly authorised under Section 113 as it was in accordance with bye-Jaw 8 of Chapter XIV of the bye-laws of the Surat City Municipality.2. The board put up is in accordance with bye-law 8. But the applicant has clearly contravened bye-law 10, Sub-clause 3, which requires that the owner shall duly pay in advance the fees prescribed by rules under Section 46(i). It is an admitted fact that the prescribed fee was not paid. It is urged) however, that this bye-law 10 is not applicable to such a projection, and even if applicable, it is ultra vires of the Municipality to levy any fees. The bye-law provides that projections may be permitted only on the conditions w...
Tag this Judgment!Nagindas Chhabildas Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom207; 45Ind.Cas.503
Shah, J.1. The point raised in support of this application is that the putting up of the shop-board by the applicant was duly authorised under Sub-section 1 of Section 113 and was, therefore, exempt from punishment either under Section 122 or under Section 113 of the Bombay District Municipalities Act of 1901. It is argued that it was duly authorised under Section 113 as it was in accordance with bye-law 8 of Chapter XIV of the Bye-laws of the Surat City Municipality.2. The board put up is in accordance with bye-law 8. But the applicant has clearly contravened bye-law 10, Sub-clause 3, which requires that the owner shall duly pay in advance the fees prescribed by rules under Section 46 (i). It is an admitted fact that the prescribed fee was not paid. It is urged, however, that this bye law 10 is not applicable to such a projection, and even if applicable, it is ultra vires of the Municipality to levy any fees. The bye-law provides that projections may be permitted only on the condition...
Tag this Judgment!Bhausing Ragho Vs. Chaganiram Harchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom157; (1918)20BOMLR348; 45Ind.Cas.552
Beaman, J.1. I think it necessary to express my own emphatic opinion that an application of this kind is not within the scope or intention of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. Nor does that section confer upon us jurisdiction to deal with errors of this kind. I think it is very clear that that section is intended to empower Courts to deal with their own decrees and orders and was not intended to give authority to superior Courts by way of conferring supplemental jurisdiction to that conferred by Section 115. But I think that this is a good case under Section 115. What has happened is very clear. The trial Court held that the present applicant was not an agriculturist on the ground that the question was res judicata. On appeal, the learned Judge hold that the question was not res judicata and remanded the case under Order XLI, Rule 23. Of that there can he no doubt whatever. Where that happens Section 13 of the Court-Fees Act makes it compulsory upon the Court to grant the certif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »