Mumbai Court February 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.
Ramchandra Jagannath Vs. the Great Indian Peninsula Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom148; (1918)20BOMLR591
Kajiji, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit claims from the defendant railway company Rs. 25000 as damages. It appears that, on 16th September 191G, the plaintiff delivered to the defendant railway company, at the Victoria Terminus Station, a parcel containing twenty-four account-books consigned to the plaintiffs firm at Nagpur for carriage from the Victoria Terminus Station to Nagpur. It appears that, on or about the 21st September 1016, the plaintiff's agent presented the railway receipt and claimed delivery of the parcel in question but he was informed by the defendant company's agent that the parcel belonging to the plaintiff had been received at Nagpur but the same had by mistake been delivered to a representative of the Superintendent of the Central Jail at Nagpur and it was afterwards ascertained that the Jail authorities had practically destroyed all the account-books contained in that parcel.2. The defendants say that the account-books were 'writings' within the meaning of the sec...
Vithal Dhonddev Raikar Vs. the Alibag Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom139; (1918)20BOMLR756; 47Ind.Cas.145
Shah, J.1. In this case the plaintiff applied to the Municipality of Alibag on the 1st of December 1913 for permission to build a privy on his own land. The permission was granted by the Municipality on the 22nd of December. On the 8th of January 1914, the Municipality gave a notice to the present plaintiff requiring him not to build the privy until a further order was made. The plaintiff gave notice to the Municipality on the 22th of June of the present action and on the 7th of July 1914 filed the suit for the cancellation of the order of the Municipality dated the 8th of January 1914 based on a resolution of the Managing Committee of the 6th January and for a declaration that he had a right to construct the privy the also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant Municipality from preventing the plaintiff in the work of constructing the privy, and for damages.2. The trial Court allowed the plaintiff's claim holding that the second order was beyond the powers of the ...
Narsagauda Savantgauda Patil Vs. Chawagauda Adgauda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom188; (1918)20BOMLR802; 47Ind.Cas.581
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. In this reference the facts are these : The suit, which was filed in September 1911, was brought to obtain possession of lands. The plaintiff attained majority on 10th June 1903 : on the 16th March 1903, and consequently while he was still an infant, he executed a deed of sale in favour of the defendant. The defendant had obtained possession under a mortgage of 1901, executed by the plaintiff's guardian in his favour. In the plaint the sale-deed of 16th March 1903 is mentioned, and it is pleaded that the deed is void by reason of the plaintiff's then infancy : there is no prayer that the deed should be set aside or cancelled.2. The question we have to decide is whether the suit is governed by Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908 : if it is so governed, then it is barred ; otherwise it is in time.3. The sale-deed of March 1903 was, and is, void and inoperative by reason of the plaintiff's infancy. That being so, it is contended for the pl...
Narsagounda BIn Savantgounda Patil Vs. Chawagounda Adgounda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR42Bom638
Stanley Batchelor, Acting C.J.1. In this reference the facts are these: The suit, which was filed in September 1911, was brought to obtain possession of lands. The plaintiff attained majority on 10th June 1903: on the 16th March 1903 and consequently while he was still an infant, he executed a deed of sale in favour of the defendant. The defendant had obtained possession under a mortgage of 1901, executed by the plaintiff's guardian in his favour. In the plaint the sale-deed of 16th March 1903 is mentioned, and it is pleaded that the deed is void by reason of the plaintiffs then infancy: there is no prayer that the deed should be se| aside or cancelled.2. The question we have to decide is whether the suit is governed by Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908: if it is so governed, then it is barred; otherwise it is in time.3. The sale-deed of March 1903 was, and is, void and inoperative by reason of the plaintiff's infancy. That being so, it is contended for the plaintiff, tha...
Laxmava Huchappa Nasipudi Vs. Rachappa Chanbasappa Karveershetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom180; (1918)20BOMLR408
Beaman, J.1. We think that the plaintiff's suit is clearly time-barred. At the time of the sale by his mother he was a minor and she was his natural guardian. She sold in that character. The plaintiff did not bring his suit within three years after attaining majority. (I might add that the actual plaintiff was the assignee of the minor just mentioned). In these circumstances, but for certain decisions of this Court, to which we have been referred, we should have entertained no doubt whatever but that the suit was time-barred under Art. 44 of the First Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. The case of Balappa v. Chanbasappa : AIR1915Bom150 and the case of Anandappa v. Totappa (1915) 17 Bom. I.R. 1137 with which we have been especially pressed, are, we think, easily distinguishable. We need only mention the first of these cases and point out that the transferor was not the natural guardian of the minor at all but his step-mother. The decision can then be put on the ground that the alien...
Tulla Sobharam Pandya Vs. the Collector of Kaira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom107; (1918)20BOMLR748; 47Ind.Cas.117
Heaton, J.1. The plaintiffs are land-holders in the village of Badalpur in the Kaira District and they sued for an injunction to restrain the Collector from acting as he proposes to do by way of levying assessment from them. The Talukdari Settlement Officer gave them notice to this effect dated the 20th May 1913. Their case is that they hold their lands rent-free. The defendant, who originally was the Talukdari Settlement Officer and who has now been replaced by the Collector, maintained that the village of Badalpur had been attached under the powers conferred by Section 144 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code and that in virtue of Section 160 of that Code he had power to levy assessment on the lands of the plaintiffs. The District Court decided the case in favour of the defendant and the plaintiffs appealed to this Court. The evidence at that stage was so extremely scanty that eventually this Court found itself unable to decide the appeal and remanded eight issues to be determined by the ...
Mareppa Panditeppa Bhojannavar Vs. Gundo Annaji Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR469
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This was a suit under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act to take accounts of a mortgage executed by the plaintiffs to the defendant, and for a declaration as to the sum due upon it. The defendant obtained a decree against the plaintiffs and their Bhaubands for Rs. 3,132-10-0, made up of Rs. 1,500 principal, Rs. 233 costs and the balance interest. The plaintiffs' share admittedly was one-half. But by reason of a remission this sum was reduced to Rs. 1,480 only for which a mortgage was made.2. The question before us is whether under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act this sum of Rs. 1,480, part of the decretal debt, is to be regarded as the principal sum, or whether for the purposes of the agriculturist mortgagor it can now be resolved into its component elements of Rs. 866 principal and Rs. 614 interest. Now the section of the Act admittedly applicable to the present circumstances is Section 13 Clause (d) is especially cited by the learned J...
Yamunabai Narayan Chitnis Vs. Lagmanna Basanna Kurani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom45; (1919)21BOMLR820
Stanley Batchelor, A.C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum, Mr. Koppikar. The suit was brought for possession of certain lands with mesne profits. The original defendants Nos. 1 to 24 were tenants in occupation of the lands in suit, but the real combatant defendant was defendant No. 25, who is the Sar Desai of Vantmuri. The history of the litigation is set out in the learned Subordinate Judge's judgment, but it will be convenient to refer to a few of the more important facts now, in order to bring them into early prominence. It is admitted that the original owner of the lands in suit was the Desai, the predecessor of the present defendant No. 25, to whom I shall in future allude as the defendant. So early as 1774 A. D. his ancestors made a grant of these lands to the plaintiff's ancestors by the Sanad, Exh. 201. A pedigree of the plaintiff's family, so far as we are concerned with it, will be found in the Subordinate Judge's...
Debendra Nath Das Vs. Bibudhendra Mansing Bhramarbar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR743
Ameer Ali, J.1. The sole question involved in this appeal is whether the defendant-appellant is a 'tenure-holder' or raiyat as defined in the Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885).2. The defendant holds over 250 acres of land in the village of Goyalbank, forming part of the plaintiffs zemindari in the district of Cuttack, under a lease granted by the predecessor of the plaintiff in 1901 to one Gokulananda Chowdhury. In 1907 Gokulananda assigned the lease to the defendant.3. The land covered by the lease became about the same time the subject of 'rccord-of-righta' proceedings instituted by Government under Chapter X of the Act.4. These proceedings are taken by the revenue authorities before special officers for the ascertainment and record of all rights connected with the land within the ambit of the enquiry. At the initial stage of the proceedings the defendant was entered as a 'tenure-holder,' but subsequently on his objection the Assistant Settlement Officer recorded him as 'a settled ra...
Nilkanth Laxman Joshi Vs. Ragho Mahadu Pavale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR351; 45Ind.Cas.559
Beaman, J.1. The application for execution would undoubtedly be in time if we take the date of the issue of the notice upon the last application to be in fact the date on which it was issued and not the date on which the Court ordered it to be issued. There was a conflict of authority under the former Indian Limitation Act, this Court holding that the word 'issuing' in the Article meant, not the actual sending out of the notice, but the making of the order that it should on some future day be sent out. The Calcutta and Madras High Courts took the opposite view. The Indian Limitation Act was accordingly amended and the word 'issue' was substituted for 'issuing'. I entertain no doubt but that the intention of that amendment was to give effect to the view held by the Calcutta and Madras High Courts. As the Article now stands, I do not see how it is capable of any other construction. Time is said to run in all cases in which notices have been issued from the issue of the notice. Taking lan...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »