Mumbai Court June 1918 Judgments
Vatsalabai Vishnu Sukhtankar Vs. Sambhaji Pandurang Nabar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom100; (1918)20BOMLR902; 47Ind.Cas.757
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question for decision arises with reference to the constitution of a Suit No. 205 of 1914 filed by five persons the fourth of whom was Radhabai. She died after the suit had been filed on the 10th of March 1916 and, on the 18th of April, an application was made on behalf of the minor Govind Sambhaji, son of the 1st plaintiff, that he should be brought on the record as heir and legal representative of the deceased Radhabai, relying upon an alleged adoption. The learned Judge acceded and the record was amended by the substitution of Govind Sambhaji's name for that of Radhabai. The petitioners having learnt of the application applied on the 26th of July that Govind's name should be deleted and that the minor daughters of Radhabai should be brought upon the record in his place. The learned Judge, however, after hearing the evidence adduced by the disputing parties, held that he could not alter his previous order as Rule 3 of Order XXII provides that after the re...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanlal Choonilal Panalal Vs. the Municipal Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR114
Shaw, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated the Kith April, 1916, confirming decrees which are dated the 15th October, 1914, in two suits which were instituted in its original jurisdiction.2. The object of the suit by the respondents, the Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay, against the appellant, is for a declaration of the plaintiff's property in a certain piece of land, and for the ejectment there from of the defendant, the present appellant, and for delivery forthwith by him of possession thereof. The land has been built over. The issue raised is serious, affecting as it may do many other frontage sites in Bombay.3. The position of the block of property (of which the piece just mentioned forms a part) is as follows. It is a corner site having one frontage to the east--Kalbadevi Road, the other frontage to the north--to Princess Street, in the City of Bombay. Princess Street is made on the site of what was...
Tag this Judgment!Gaurishankar Balmukund Vs. Chinnumiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR541
Shaw, J.1. By Section 325A of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882) it is provided that:-So long as the Collector can exercise or perform in respect of the judgment-debtor's immovable property, or any part thereof, any of the powers or duties conferred or imposed on him by Sections 322 to 325 (both inclusive), the judgment-debtor or his representative in interest shall be incompetent to mortgage, charge, lease, or alienate such property or part except with the written permission of the Collector, nor shall any Civil Court issue any process against such property or part in execution of a decree for money. 2. In the present case the two salient facts are simply these : That in 1891 the Collector of the district came under the Act into possession of the property in question; and that secondly, while he was still in possession of that property, a mortgage upon it was granted on the 22nd July, 1892, by the judgment-debtor. It is now sought to make that mortgage operative in the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Sheik SharfuddIn Vs. Radha Charan Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR544
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Calcutta, dated the 1st July, 1913. That decree reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Court of Cuttack, dated the 30th March, 1911.2. The suit was one to set aside a sale for arrears of Government revenue. The sale had been conducted under the provisions of the leading statute, Act XI of the year 1859.3. By Section 33 of that statute it is provided that no such sale 'shall be annulled by a Court of Justice, except upon the ground of its having been made contrary to the provisions of this Act, and then only on proof that the plaintiff has sustained substantial injury by reason of the irregularity complained of.' The defect of procedure which is said not to be merely an irregularity but to amount to an illegality is this: that publication of the notification of sale was necessary in the Urya vernacular Government 'Gazette,' circulating in the district. By order of the Lieutenant Governor, manifestly ...
Tag this Judgment!Harihar Banerji Vs. Ramsashi Ray
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR522
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William, Bengal, dated the 16th April, 1915, which dismissed an appeal from the Subordinate Court of Hooghly, dated the 19th May 1914.2. The action out of which the appeal has arisen is one of ejectment brought not by owners or occupiers of land against persons trespassing upon it, but by landlords of a particular piece of land against their former tenants of the same to recover possession thereof on the ground that the tenancy of those tenants has been determined by an effective notice to quit duly served.3. Two sets of defendants have been named in the plaint, the first containing the names of seven persons named Banerji, some of whom were, and still are, members of a joint Hindu family; others were once such members and have ceased to be so. For convenience these are styled the principal defendants, and are alleged by the plaintiffs to have been their tenants from year to year of the piece of l...
Tag this Judgment!Paremeshwaribai Nagesh Ganpaya Vs. Raghavendra Chidanand Kaikeni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1918
Reported in: 50Ind.Cas.449
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff sues for possession of immoveable property of which the owner prior to 1901 was Shantmurti.2. On his death his near relations were Laxmi his mother, the defendant his sister, and Padmavati his sister's daughter. The defendant was living an immoral life with a paramour and was outcaste.3. On the 3rd of March 1903, Laxmi who had succeeded to her son's property made it over to Chidanand, father of the plaintiff, for the benefit, on their attaining majority, of Pad ma and the plaintiff who had been selected as her bridegroom. In consideration of the handing over of the property Chidanand agreed to pay (1) a debt of Rs. 100 due to one Radhabai on a deed passed by Shantmurti, (2) the marriage expenses of Padma, (3) the obsequies of Laxmi on her death and certain anniversary and other ceremonies.4. On the 19th of July in the same year the defendant, reciting the document of the 3rd of March 1903 and the marriage of her daughter Padma to the plaintiff, stated ...
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhri Risal Singh Vs. Balwant Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-03-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR511
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 29th April, 1915, of the High Court at Allahabad, which affirmed a decree of the additional Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur by which the suit of the plaintiffs had been dismissed. The suit was dismissed on the ground that a decision of the Board on the 23rd April, 1912, in an appeal to His Majesty in Council in a previous suit, in which Balwant Singh, the principal defendant in this suit, was the defendant and the late Rani Dharam Kunwar was the plaintiff, operated as a bar to the maintenance of this suit, which is brought by plaintiffs who were not parties to the previous suit, and do not represent either party to the previous suit. That decision is reported in 39 I. A. 142.2. In this suit the plaintiffs are Chaudhri Risal Singh and Lala Fateh Chand. The plaintiff Chaudhri Risal Singh claims in this suit possession of part of the Landhaura Raj, which is a large estate of groat value; his claim is based on an allegation that he...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›