Mumbai Court January 1919 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.
Musammat Afzal-un-nissa Vs. Abdul Karim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR891
Dunedin, J.1. The predecessors-in-title of the appellant in these consolidated appeals raised as plaintiffs three suits of ejectment in respect of three parcels of land held by the respondents, respectively. Questions as to sufficiency of notice were raised, but need not be alluded to. The real question at issue is raised by the defence of each of the respondents, which has been upheld by the Courts below, viz., that they are permanent tenants at a fixed rent which has admittedly been paid since the beginning of the tenancy, and as such cannot be evicted on the allegation that they are tenants-at-will.2. The parcels of land in question are situated in a suburb of Delhi and are covered by buildings of masonry occupied by the respondents. It is admitted that the respondents' predecessors-in-title were invited to occupy the land for building purposes by the predecessors of the appellant in about the year 1859. No document showing the terms of occupancy is extant, nor is there any reliable...
Abdul Majidkhan Vs. Husseinbu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR229; 55Ind.Cas.952
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by a Mahomedan widow to recover her dower and her share in the property of her deceased husband.2. The first point urged in support of the appeal is that her claim to dower is time-barred. Both the Courts have decided in favour of the plaintiff. The decision on this point really depends upon the question of fact as to whether there was any demand and refusal during her husband's life-time. The finding is in favour of the plaintiff, which must be accepted in second appeal. The point, therefore, fails.3. The second point relates to the gift of a house. Defendant No. 1 pleaded that the house in question was given to him by way of gift by his grand-father on 8th July 1912 and relied upon a registered deed of gift. Both the Courts have found that there was no delivery of possession and that the gift is invalid. It is urged that there was a transfer of possession so as to make the gift valid. It is clear that the registered deed of gift by ...
Gopalji Kuverji Vs. Morarji Jeram Naranji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom24; (1919)21BOMLR308; 50Ind.Cas.411
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The petitioner Morarji Jairam Naranji petitions under the Indian Arbitration Act as follows :--1. That by a writing in the Gujarati language and character made in Bombay on the 21st day of March 1918 between the 1st respondent of the 1st part, the petitioner of the second part, and the second respondent Pitamber Vithalji of the third part, certain disputes between the said parties in respect of contracts for sales and purchases of piece goods of ready and forward delivery were referred to the joint arbitration of Messrs. Lalji Govindji, Morarji Mathurdas Kamdar (a solicitor of this Hon'ble Court and solicitor for the 1st respondent) and Mansukhlal Oghadlal upon and subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the said writing. By the said writing it was provided that the said arbitrators should publish their award within two months, and power was given to the said arbitrators to further extend the said time by one or two months. A copy of the said writing is her...
Bai Kuvarbai Vs. Jamshedji Rustamji Daruvalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR709
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the screen erected by them against certain jalis and windows in the western wall of the plaintiffs' house and to the west of the terrace on the second storey and for a permanent injunction restraining them from obstructing the passage of light and air to the jalis, windows and terrace in future.2. The lower Courts have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to a mandatory injunction for removing the screen except as to the terrace, and that they are not entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the passage of light and air to the jalis and windows.3. The appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the mandatory injunction, and cross-objections have been preferred by the plaintiffs on the ground that a permanent injunction should have been granted. The claim for permanent injunction has not been pressed, and is clearly untena...
Bai Kurvarbai and ors. Vs. Jamsedji Rustamji Daruvala and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1919
Reported in: AIR1918Bom94; 49Ind.Cas.963
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the screen erected by them against certain Jalis and windows in the western wall of the plaintiffs' house and to the west of the terrace on the second story, and for a permanent in junction restraining them from obstructing the passage of light and air to the Jalis, windows and terrace in future.2. The lower Courts have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to a mandatory injunction for removing the screen except as to the terrace, and that they are not entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the passage of light and air to the Jalis and windows.3. The appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the mandatory injunction, and cross-objections have been preferred by the plaintiffs on the ground that a permanent injunction should have been granted. The claim for permanent, injunction has not been pressed, and is clearly unte...
Maharaja of Jeypore Vs. Rukmini Pattamahadevi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR655
Phillimore, J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras which varied a decree of the Court of the Agent to the Governor of Madras.2. The suit was brought by the present appellant against the husband of the present respondent for possession of the pargana of Bissemkatak, and for arrears of rent and mesne profits.3. The case made in the plaint filed on 17th September, 1906, was that Bissemkatak was in the plaintiff's Zamindari, that under various grants or leases it had been held by the ancestors of the defendant paying rent and rendering services to the ancestors of the plaintiff, and that at the present time the governing instrument was a patta, of the 1st August, 1877, under which the then Maharajah continued the father of the defendant in possession of the pargana on his payment of an annual Kattubadi of Rs. 15,000. The further contents of the patta were stated as follows:--Just as your father used to attend in Dasara for service, so, now you sho...
Emperor Vs. Hira Gobar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR724
Shah, J.1. In this case three persons were charged with house-breaking at night and theft of property worth about Rs. 22,000 said to have been committed in the bungalow of the complainant on the Walkeshwar Road on the 11th February last year. The theft and the house-breaking alleged were undoubtedly committed. A part of the property stolen was later on traced to one Moti Narottam residing in the Palanpur territory, and as a result of the investigation that followed upon this tracing of the property the present accused who belong to the Kaira District, were sent up for trial to the Second Presidency Magistrate.2. The property which has been traced bad been identified, and there can be no doubt that the property traced to Moti and the witness Shiva in the case formed part of the property stolen from the house of the complainant. The principal evidence against these three persons was the evidence of the witness Moti Narotam. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 on t...
Hira Gobar Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom162; 52Ind.Cas.601
Shah, J.1. In this case three persons were charged with house-breaking at night and theft of property worth about Rs. 22,000, said to have been committed in the bungalow of the complainant on the Walkeshwar Road on the 11th February last year. The theft and the house breaking alleged were undoubtedly committed. A part of the property stolen was later on traced to one Moti Narottam residing in the Palanpur territory, and, as a result of the investigation that followed upon this tracing of the property, the present accused who belong to the Kaira District, were sent up for trial to the Second Presidency Magistrate.2. The property which has been traced has been identified, and there can be no doubt that the property traced to Moti and the witness Shiva in the case formed part of the property stolen from the house of the complainant. The principal evidence against these three persons was the evidence of the witness Moti Narottam. The learned trial Magistrate acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 ...
Morarji Gokuldas and Co. Vs. the Asian Commercial Assurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1919
Reported in: AIR1919Bom145; (1919)21BOMLR397; 51Ind.Cas.293
Basil Scott, C.J.1. As a result of negotiations which commenced in December 1917 the plaintiffs took a lease from Sir Mahomed Yusuf of his premises in Church Gate Street consisting of a four-storied house, on the 6th of February 1918.2. By the lease the plaintiffs became entitled to the premises for twenty years, at a rent of Rs. 6,500 per annum for the first ten years and Rs. 7,000 for the second ten years with an option of renewal for another seven years at the same rent and by the lease they acquired the benefit of all subsisting tenancies,3. Their object in taking the house was to utilize the fourth floor as an office for their firm. At the date of the lease it was held by the defendants on a monthly tenancy and the plaintiffs arranged with Sir Mahomed Yusuf to give notice to quit on the 31st March to the defendants as the plaintiffs' tenure was to commence on the 1st of April.4. Accordingly such notice to quit was given to the defendants on the 18th of February.5. They did not, ho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›