Mumbai Court December 1918 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shahasaheb Sabduralli Vs. Sadashiv Supde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom135; (1919)21BOMLR369; 51Ind.Cas.223
Pratt, J.1. In this suit the mortgagee, who is respondent in this appeal, sued to recover the mortgage debt by sale of properties mortgaged in 1896 by the deceased Sabdaralli. The suit was brought within the extended period of limitation allowed by Section 36 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and the original mortgagor having died before the suit Ins wife and daughters--the appellants--were made defendants.2. Objection was taken in the first Court that the suit was bad for non-joinder of other heirs of Sabdaralli--his brother and sister's children. But the mortgagee did not join them in spite of the objection as the period of limitation as against them had expired.3. The Subordinate Judge held that the non-joinder of these heirs was not fatal to the suit and decreed the suit as against the interest of the wife and daughters. The lower appellate Court confirmed this decree and the wife and daughters in this appeal contend that the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 1, are imperative and ...
Krishnaji Ganesh Kulkarni Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom122; (1919)21BOMLR376; 51Ind.Cas.228
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued for a declaration that he was a British subject, alleging that he was a resident of Lohakur in the Pachapur Taluka in Dharwar Subha, a village which was in the Peshwa's dominions until 1818 when it was annexed by the British Government and included in the District or Subha of Dharwar. He alleges that, on the 3rd of April 1820, the revenues of the village were assigned to the then Chief of Kurundwad (the ancestor of the second defendant), but the village itself remained in British possession through a misconception of the grant or through oversight or negligence and breach of duty and without any reasonable cause whatever. British authorities ceased to exercise their supreme authority over the village, a course which was blindly followed until now with the result that the Chief of Kurundwad began to exercise sovereign control over the village to the detriment of the plaintiff's rights and privileges of a British subject. The plaintiff ...
Rachappa Subrao Jadhav Desai Vs. Shidappa Venkatrao Jadhav Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR489
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. This suit was instituted in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum to establish the plaintiff's claim as adopted son to the property of Venkatrao Desai.2. The prayers of the plaint are for (1)-(1) a declaration that the plaintiff being the lawfully adopted son of the deceased Venkatrao Desai is owner of all his property...Rs. 130; (2) a permanent injunction may be issued to the defendant prohibiting him from causing obstruction to the immoveable and moveable property that is in the plaintiff's possession. Valuation for this purpose is Rs. 5. (3) If it be deemed desirable to grant to the plaintiff any other relief besides this the same may be given. 3. and so forth. It is alleged in the plaint that the property forming the subject-matter of the suit is worth Rs. 69,000, that it is situate in the Districts of Belgaum and Satara, and that the portion in Belgaum is in the taluks of Athni and Chikodi.4. At the date of the suit the only item in the p...
Musammat Jeuna Bahu Vs. Rai Parmeshwar Narayan Mahtha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR589
Buckmaster, J.1. In this case the appellants challenge the validity of an execution sale of a sixteen anna share in certain mouzahs appertaining to Mahal Sonkarsa. The sale took place on the 15th December, 1891, pursuant to an Order of Attachment of the 5th November, 1891, issuing out of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mozufferpur, and made in execution of a decree of the same Court passed on the 17th April, 1890.2. There are two grounds upon which this case rests: the first that the decree of the 17th April, 1890, was, so far as it formed a foundation for the sale of this property, ultra virus; and, secondly, that at the date of the sale there was, in fact, another order existing for the sale of the same property. For reasons that their Lordships will state, they think there is no efficacy in either of these contentions.3. The facts that preceded the litigation out of which this appeal has arisen are very simple, though they have been the cause of many legal complications. On th...
Sri Sri Maharaja Ram Narayan Singh Vs. Ram Saran Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR597
John Edge, J.1 This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 16th June, 1914,. of the High Court at Calcutta which set aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh, dated the 12th August, 1910, and dismissed the suit.2. The suit in which this appeal was brought was commenced by Maharaja Sri Sri Ram Narayan on the 4th February, 1909, for Khas possession of Mouzah Saiga in Raj Ramgarh in Chhota Nagpur and for mesne profits. Mouzah Saiga had been granted as jaigir in 1852 to Kanai Singh by Maharaja Sumbunath, ancestor of the plaintiff, who was the Zamindar, then possessed of the Mouzah. The original plaintiff has died and the appellant is his legal representative.3. The grant of the jaigir as translated is as follows:-3rd Falgun Sudi 1908 Sambat. 4. Pottah of agreement granted by order of His Highness Maharaja Sri Sri Sambhu Nath Singh Bahadur is as follows :-The jaigir of Saiga, one village, in pergunnah Karanpura is granted to Kanai Singh, of which the jumma is Co's Rs. 300. Out o...
Hukumchand Boid Vs. Pirthichand Lal Chowdhury
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR632
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. On the 14th May, 1904, a patni Taluk known as Lot Mirzapur was put up for sale for arrears of rent under the Bengal Patni Taluks Regulation 1819 at the instance of the Zemindar, Mussmnat Bhagwanbati Chowdurain. The defendant-respondent, Pirthichand Lal Choudhury, as her successor-in-title, is the present Zemindar. The defaulting patnidar was Chhatraput Singh. Hukumchand Boid, now represented on this appeal by his heirs the plaintiffs-appellants, was the highest bidder, and the tenure was knocked down to him.. The purchaser paid in the entire amount of the purchase money, and on the 23rd of May, 1904, ho received from the officer conducting the sale a certificate of payment under Section 15 of the Regulation.3. On the 28th May, 1904, the purchaser received the usual amaldustak or order for possession but on the 80th of June following, a darpatnidar, being desirous of contesting the right of the Zemindar to make the sale, sued her for its reversal. Three similar su...
Shahasaheb Mard Sabdaralli and ors. Vs. Sadashiv Supdu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR43Bom575
Pratt, J.1. In this suit the mortgagee, who is respondent in this appeal, sued to recover the mortgage debt by sale of properties mortgaged in 1896 by the deceased Sabdaraili. The suit was brought within the extended period of limitation allowed by Section 36 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and the original mortgagor having died before the suit his wife and daughters--the appellants--were made defendants.2. Objection was taken in the first Court that the suit was bad for non-joinder of other heirs of Sabdaralli--his brother and sister's children. But the mortgagee did not join them in spite of the objection as the period of limitation as against them had expired.3. The Subordinate Judge held that the non-joinder of these heirs was not fatal to the suit and decreed the suit as against the interest of the wife and daughters. The lower appellate Court confirmed this decree and the wife and daughters in this appeal contend that the provisions of Order XXXIV, Rule 1, are imperative and ...
Srimati Rani Kuar Mani Singh Mandhata Vs. the Nawab of Murshidabad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR611
Lawrence Jenkins, J. 1. Raja Prithwi Nath Singh Mandhata died on the 4th October, 1882, without male issue and was succeeded by his two widows. At his death he was heavily indebted, and on the 1st March, 1886, the widows presented a petition to the Commissioner of their division praying that he would recommend the Court of Wards to take charge of the estate. On the 30th July, 1886, the Court of Wards under Section 27 of the Court of Wards Act, 1879, declared the widows to be disqualified proprietors under Section 6 (a) of the Act, and by the same order declared under Section 35 that it had determined to take under its charge the property of the widows and directed that possession be taken of the property on behalf of the Court.2. On the 7th of June, 1890, a part of the property called Killa Nazagram was sold to the defendant's father and predecessor-in-title, and the transfer was executed by the Collector. The purchaser obtained possession admittedly not later than the 30th April, 1891...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›