Mumbai Court March 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.
Raichand Motichand Gujar Vs. Dhondo Laxuman Bhure
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom163; (1918)20BOMLR773; 47Ind.Cas.313
Beaman, J.1. The point raised here is one of considerable interest and must, I think, have been one of frequent occurrence. We are not referred to any decision of our High Court upon it. The appellant, however, relies upon a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Shankar Prasad v. Jalpa Prasad I.L.R. (1894) All. 371 which would appear to be conclusive in his favour. With great respect, I am doubtful whether the reasoning of that judgment will stand critical analysis and I will briefly give my reasons for being of a different opinion.2. The point arises in this way upon an instalment decree in a very common form. A debt of roughly Es. 800 had to be paid off by eight annual instalments of Rs. 100 each, and there was a term in the decree that on failure to pay any one of these instalments before the next had become due, the creditor could call in the whole amount of debt with interest at the agreed rate. It is found as a fact that no instalment was ever paid. The decree was m...
Vishveshwar Vighneshwar Shastri Vs. Mahableshwar Subba Bhatta and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR43Bom28
Beaman, J. 1. I doubt whether the true point was present to the mind of the learned Judge below. He appears to have thought that the question could be answered from the language of Sections 6, Clause (b), 109 and 111, Clause (g) of the Transfer of Property Act. Even were that so I should still doubt whether the answer he has given is right. Section 6, Clause (6), is no more than a special case of a mere right to sue. For if the mere right of re-entry on breach of condition subsequent is transferred, without the reversion, the person having it could only use it for the purpose of a suit to enforce forfeiture, without gaining any right or interest in the property so demised and forfeited. Section 109 seems to me to have no bearing on the point. Section 111, Clause (g), need not mean any more than that the lessor must give notice of. intention to enforce forfeiture, or if the breach has occurred after transfer of the reversion, the transferee must give notice. That is how I read it, and i...
Hanmandas Ramdayal Vs. Valabhdas Shankardas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR472
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dhulia. The plaintiff was the son of the 5th defendant, these two persons constituting an undivided family. It appears that among the family assets was a firm conducted in the name of Khushaldas Damodardas. In 1904, the present defendants Nos. 6 and 7 filed a suit in the Court of Dhulia to recover a sum of Rs. 22,000 odd, upon certain cotton transactions which they had with the firm of Khushaldas Damodardas. The defendants Nos. 6 and 7, by this suit, sued to recover the money from the present 5th defendant, the father of the plaintiff. It was not then known that the 5th defendant had a son, or that there was any other member of the family, besides the 5th defendant. In March 1905, the claim was decreed against the 5th defendant. In April following, an application was made for execution, and in the course of the execution, the present appellants, who were defendants...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›