Mumbai Court August 1918 Judgments
Ramji Bapuji Patil Vs. Pandharinath Ravji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom1; (1919)21BOMLR56
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The question referred for the decision of the Full Bench is whether a mortgagor, who has brought a suit for redemption and obtained a decree nisi, which neither the mortgagor nor the mortgagee has applied to be made absolute, can, after the execution of that decree is time-barred, bring a fresh suit for redemption2. It is desirable, before discussing this question, to state shortly how it arises in the present case. The plaintiff filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage with possession and obtained a decree on the 30th September 1908 that the plaintiff should pay Rs. 117 and costs within twelve months and redeem the property, or in default the defendant should recover the amount by sale of the property. The plaintiff filed an application No. 742 of 1909 for payment of the money, but failed to pay by the due date, and his application was struck off on the 25th January 1910. The mortgagee took no steps under the decree to obtain a decree absolute, and on the 12th Dec...
Tag this Judgment!May Geraldine Duckworth Vs. George Francis Duckworth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom133; (1919)21BOMLR137; 50Ind.Cas.427
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the District Judge of Ahmednagar who has dismissed an application under the Civil Procedure Code for execution of an order for alimony in favour of the first wife and children of the respondent, Duckworth. The respondent's marriage with the appellant was dissolved by the District Judge of Ahmednagar and the decree for dissolution was confirmed by the High Court.2. The respondent is a First Class Warrant Officer of the British Army and as such he falls within the definition of 'soldier' in the Army Act, 44 & 45 Vic. Clause 58, Section 90. Section 145 of that Act provides a special procedure when any order or decree is made for payment by a man, who is a soldier, of the cost of the maintenance of his wife or child. Under the provisions of that section as amended by Army (Amendment) Act No. 2 of 1915, the Commander-in-Chief ordered that a particular sum should be deducted from the pay of the respondent for payment to the appellant. This sum is le...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagirthibai Kom Mahadev Abhyankar Vs. Roshanbi Kom Mahomed Hanif and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR43Bom412
Heaton, J.1. The facts which we have had to master in the consideration of these appeals are complicated, but for the purpose of Appeal No. 113 of 1917 they may be simply stated. A Mahomedan named Maniaba died possessed of five houses, leaving as his heirs a son, two widows and three daughters. The son Mahomed Hanif died afterwards, leaving as his heirs a daughter Aminabi, his widow Roshanbi and a son who was afterwards held to be illegitimate and not to be an heir. A money decree was obtained against the estate of Mahomed Hanif in a suit by a creditor in which the defendants were that deceased person's widow Roshanbi, his step-mother Sakinabi and the son Abdul. His daughter Aminabi who was really his principal heir was not made a party to the suit. Thereafter one of the five houses known as No. 871 was sold in execution of the decree and bought by defendant No. 1. What was sold was the right, title and interest of Mahomed Hanif deceased. The plaintiff has become, by processes which it...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkadas Motilal Vs. Bai Jekore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom88; (1918)20BOMLR983; 51Ind.Cas.179
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff to obtain a declaration of her right to one-fourth share in the property mentioned in the plaint which she alleges to be known as Vania Desai Vatan Property. It consists of two villages and part of two others, also pasayata lands and cash allowances. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Lallu Naranji who died in 1870 leaving a widow named Jadav who died on the 8th January 1912. The plaintiff claims as a reversioner of Lallu Naranji. The family to which she belongs was entitled to Inam lands and other property in the Panch Mahals. One branch of the family was entitled to property with which we are not concerned. The other branch descended from one Valji Raghavji who is represented by Sunderji Valji and Kuvarji Valji each of whom had an eight annas share in the Inam property of that branch. With Kuvarji's share we are not concerned. Sunderji's eight annas share descended in equal moieties to Kasanji and Mulji. We are not concerned with ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Joharmal Pannaji and anr. : Prithviraj Fulrai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom20; (1919)21BOMLR190; 50Ind.Cas.437
Marten, J.1. This is an application in bankruptcy and it raises two entirely different questions. The first is technical: the second is as to the merits of the case.2. The first question (viz., the technical one) is, what is the proper procedure for a creditor to adopt who wishes to have two alleged members of a firm of five persons re-adjudicated bankrupt, there being already a bankruptcy petition by other creditors, on which an adjudication order has been made against all five persons but has been subsequently annulled as regards two of them ?3. The second question (via., on the merits) is whether the two persons in question were partners in the firm I have mentioned. If they were partners, they ought to be adjudicated bankrupt, subject to the technical point I have mentioned. If they were not partners, then there is no ground whatever for adjudicating them bankrupt.4. The petition I have to deal with, as it originally came before me, is one asking simply for the readjudication of th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shirinbai Merwanji Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom119; (1919)21BOMLR41
Marten, J.1. This is an adjourned petition which raises the question whether trustees of land who have no express power of sale in the instrument creating the trust have power to sell that land either with or without the consent of the Court. The parties concerned are all Parsis.2. The trust instrument in question is a settlement made on the 11th February 1898. The settlor was one Bai Gulbai since deceased and the trustees were her two daughters Shirinbai and Batanbai, the present petitioners. It was a voluntary settlement, and the only property settled was a certain immoveable property in Meadows Street, Bombay, mentioned in the Schedule. The trusts were for the settlor for life with remainder as to one moiety for Ratanbai for life with remainder, to use the exact words of the instrument, 'for the issue of the body of the said Ratanbai in the shares prescribed by law as if the said Ratanbai had died possessed of the said share intestate leaving such issue only as her right heirs and i...
Tag this Judgment!Sarabai Amibai Vs. Mahomed Cassum Haji Jan Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom80; (1919)21BOMLR49
Marten, J.1. This is a curious case. The petitioner who is the widow of a Cutchi Memon applies for probate of a document as being the last will and testament of her deceased husband, which document is in the following terms according to the official translation :--May it be known to Bhai Abdulabhai us follows: In the will which you will get made tomorrow and give me, be kind not to forget (to add) my 'Mukhatyari' as long as I am alive and after me my wife's 'Mukhatyari.' Whatever costs may be incurred I will pay you. Written by your servant Mahomed Hasam Haji.' (On the other side) Bhai Abdulabhai.2. 'Mukhatyari', I should explain, means absolute ownership or authority or full power.3. Now this gentleman Abdulabhai is the testator's deceased sister's husband, in other words, his brother-in-law. He has made an affidavit and I have also seen him in the witness box, and I may say that I am satisfied that this document was written by the testator and given to the witness under the Circumsta...
Tag this Judgment!Savla Tukaram Mali Vs. Santya Parsha Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom99; (1918)20BOMLR993
Hayward, J.1. The plaintiffs are villagers seeking an injunction to prevent the skins of their dead animals being taken by the defendants who are village Mahars claiming the right as Vatandars.2. The issues raised were-whether defendants had the right, whether they were Vatandar Mahars, and whether the suit was cognisable by the civil Courts. The two former issues were not decided as it was held that the suit was barred by Section 18 of the Vatan Act, 1874, and Section 4(a) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876.3. It seems to me the suit must be remanded for trial on the merits. The skins would prima facie belong to the villagers who owned the dead animals as pointed out in the case of Yellapa Bhimapa v. Mankia (1827) 8.H.C.R. (A.C.J.) 27, and the villagers would prima facie be entitled to the injunction sought against the Mahars. This might, however,be rebutted by showing a certain, continuous, immemorial and reasonable custom in favour of the Mahars as would appear from paras ...
Tag this Judgment!Mirkha Imamkha Vs. Bhagirathi Mahadev Abhyankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom61; (1919)21BOMLR329
Heaton, J.1. The facts which we have had to master in the consideration of these appeals are complicated, but for the purpose of Appeal No. 113 of 1917 they may be simply stated: A Mahomedan named Mainaba died possessed of fire houses, leaving as his heirs a son, two widows and three daughters. The son Mahomed Hanif died afterwards leaving as his heirs a daughter Aminabi, his widow Roshanbi and a son who was afterwards held to be illegitimate and not to be an heir. A money decree was obtained against the estate of Mahomed Hanif in a suit by a creditor in which the defendants were that deceased person's widow Roshanbi, his step-mother Sakinabi and the son Abdul. His daughter Aminabi who was really his principal heir was not made a party to the suit. Thereafter one of the five houses known as No. 371 was sold in execution of the decree and bought by defendant 4. What was sold was the right, title and interest of Mahomed Hanif deceased. The plaintiif has become, by processes which it is i...
Tag this Judgment!Mirkha Imamkha Vs. Bhagirathi Mahadev Abhyankar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.18
Heaton, J.1. The facts which we have had to master in the consideration of these appeals are complicated but for the purpose of Appeal No. 113 of 1917 they may be simply stated: A Mahomedan named Mainaba died possessed of five houses, leaving as his heirs a son, two widows and three daughters. The son Mahomed Hanif died afterwards leaving as his heirs a daughter Aminabi, his widow Roshanbi and a son who was afterwards held to be illegitimate and not to be an heir. A money decree was obtained against the estate of Mahomed Hanif in a suit by a creditor in which the defendants were that deceased person's widow Roshanbi, and his step mother Sakinabi and the son Abdul. His daughter Aminabi, who was really his principal heir, was not made a party to the suit. Thereafter one of the five houses known as No. 371 was sold in execution of the decree and bought by defendant No. 4. What was sold was the right, title and interest of Mahomed Hanif deceased. The plaintiff has become, by processes whic...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›