Mumbai Court October 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.
Ma Hnit Vs. Hashim Ebrahim Meter
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR531
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 16th August, 1916, of the Additional Judge of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Upper Burma, which affirmed a decree, dated the 10th August, 1912, of the Additional Judge of the District Court of Magwe. Maung Po Ya and his wife Ma Hnit were originally the plaintiff's in the suit in which this appeal arises. Maung Po Ya has died, and Ma Hnit on her own behalf and as his legal representative has brought this appeal.2. Maung Po Ya on the 24th March, 19C9, by an agreement in writing contracted to sell to Hamed Ebrahim Madari an oil well No. 2076, at Natsin Quarter, Twingon, for Rs. 40,000 of which Rs. 5,000 were paid us earnest money, Rs. 15,000 were to be paid at the expiration of forty-five days from the date of the agreement, and at the expiration of such forty-five daya for the balance of Rs. 20,000 and interest thereon, Madari was to re-mortgage for a term of six months to Po Ya two oil wells as security. The earnest mon...
Krishnaji Sakharam Deshpande Vs. Kashim Mohiddinsaheb Havaldar and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-24-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.76
1. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are these:On the 6th of May 1893 the present defendant's father passed a possessory mortgage for Rs. 2,000 in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessor in title. The mortgage related to Vatan property. On the 8th of April 1901, the defendant's father died. The present defendant filed Suit No. 106 of 1913 to recover possession of the land and in the alternative for redemption of the mortgage. In April 1914, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs in that suit awarding them possession with mesne profits for three years. The present suit was filed by the heirs of the mortgagee to recover Rs. 3,000 (Rs. 2,000 as principal and Rs. 1,000 as interest) on the 2nd of June 1914.2. The trial Court held that the money claim was barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. In appeal the lower Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the possession was in fact taken from the plaintiffs in 1914, that under the covenant the cause of actio...
Devidas Dwarkadas Vs. Shamal Gopal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR149; 58Ind.Cas.595
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover posses ion of the plaint land on the ground that it had been leased to the defendant, and for Rs. 39 for rent.2. He alleged the land belonged to one Marghabhai Babar who leased it to defendant for one year for Rs. 39 by a lease dated 20th June 1914. The plaintiff was an assignee of the lease under a deed dated the 14th June 1915.3. The defendant was the owner of the suit land which formed an unrecognized division of a Narva. In 1895 he mortgaged it to Babar Solaidas, but continued in possession, first under a lease for ten years then under yearly leases of a moiety, and finally under yearly leases of the whole. Mar ghabhai Babar and his nephew assigned their mortgage rights, a decree and the lease of the 20th June 1914 to the plaintiff in 1915.4. At the trial defendant's pleader contended that the mortgage and lease were void under Section 3 of the Bhagdari and Narwadari Act, 1862. The learned trial Judge held that the mortgage,...
Chhotubhai Govindji Desai Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR146; 55Ind.Cas.591
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit had been in possession off a piece of land measuring one acre and twenty-one gunthas on the bank of the Tapti river in the village of Katargam in the Surat District. He alleges that by reason of such occupancy he has by law and usage the right of access to the river and to the use of the water of the river, and has a right to the accretions by allusion, and that defendant No. 1 in derogation of his rights has leased out the land in suit for five years to defendant No. 2, and that the second defendant has put up a wire fence on or about the 24th May 1912 which prevented the plaintiff from exercising his rights, and has thus caused him a loss which he assessed at Rs. 100. The Collector's order is dated 16th July 1912, and purported to be made under Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. It does not appear that the Collector had come to a conclusion that the land leased to the second defendant was alluvial land within the meaning...
Mallappa Bharmappa Vs. Hanmappa Mardeppa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR203; 55Ind.Cas.814
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for possession of a house and a one-fifth share of the lands as described in para 1 of the plaint with mesne profits.2. The first plaintiff is the adopted son of the 2nd plaintiff who is the widow of one Bharmappa. Bharmappa admittedly died in union with his brothers defendants 1 to 3 and the husband of defendant 4, leaving a minor son Mahadevappa. Thereafter there was a partition between Mahadevappa and his uncles. He died unmarried in 1907 leaving his mother the 2nd defendant as his heir. In 1908 she demanded her share which the defendants refused in 1908, since when they have been in possession against her. In 1909 she adopted the 1st plaintiff.3. The 2nd and 3rd defendants in their written statement contended inter alia that the adoption was invalid, and this is the only question which has been argued before us in second appeal. The trial Court decided in plaintiff's favour. The lower appellate Court, however, modified the decree of t...
Sakharam Manchand Gujar Vs. Keval Padamsi Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-21-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR313
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover the price of certain goods sold to the defendant on the 10th of September 1912 with interest up to date of suit; and deducting therefrom the amount received he claimed in all Rs. 1,197 at the date of the suit. The suit was filed on the 14th of October 1915. It was filed more than three years after the date on which the goods in question were supplied. But the plaintiff relied upon part-payments in respect of the debt made in two sums in July 191.3, one of Rs. 198-8-0 forming part of the cash payment of Rs. 500 and the other of Rs. 235 by a Hundi received from the defendant, and upon the fact of the payments appearing in a letter written by the debtor on the 2nd of July 1913.2. In the trial Court the defendant denied the claim on the merits and pleaded limitation. It was, however, found that the goods in question were sold by the plaintiff to the defendant and that the price of the goods was Rs. 1,350 with certain incidental charges ...
Balubhai Hiralal Vs. Nanalal Bhagubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR143
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The original plaintiff's who were father and son brought this suit to recover the sum of Rs. 21,000 odd as damages for breach of a contract of betrothal. In 1901, the 1st defendant, the brother of the proposed bride, betrothed his sister to the 2nd plaintiff. The 2nd plaintiff was then nine years old and the proposed bride was four years old. In the ordinary course the marriage would have taken place in eight or nine years, that is to say, about 1910 or 1911. But postponements were made of the marriage ceremony by the defendant, in the belief that these postponements were required by the health of the bridegroom. In December 1913, the betrothal was broken off. In April 1914 the bride Mangalagavri married the 2nd defendant. During the pendency of the suit the 1st plaintiff died, and during the pendency of the appeal the 2nd plaintiff died. The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge with costs. He held that the 1st defendant was justified in retra...
In Re: Jesa Bhatha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR190; 55Ind.Cas.857
Shah, J.1. In this case seven persons including Dhula Bhatha and Mangal Chuna were ordered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the 18th of December 1918 to execute a personal recognizance for Rs. 100 and to furnish two solvent and respectable sureties for the same amount each for good behaviour for a period of one year. On the same day they were ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year or until within such period the security required was furnished, as no sureties were furnished by the persons concerned on that day. On the 16th of April last an application was made by the relations of these two persons Dhula and Mangal offering the necessary sureties on their behalf. The persons offered as sureties were two brothers, Purshotam and Gangashankar. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate referred the matter to the Police and on the 3rd of May last a report was made by the Sub-Inspector of Umreth that the sureties offered had land in the village of Araj, and that they were ordinary men. T...
In Re: Jesa Bhatha and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom385
Shah, J.1. In this case seven persons including Dhula Bhatha and Mangal Chuna were ordered by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on the 18th of December 1918 to execute a personal recognizance for, Rs. 100 and to furnish two solvent and. respectable sureties for the same amount each for good behaviour for a period of one year. On the same day they were ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year or until within such period the security required was furnished, as no sureties were furnished by the persons concerned on that day. On the 16th of April last an application was made by the relations of these two persons Dhula and Mangal offering the necessary sureties on their behalf. The persons offered as sureties were two brothers,. Purshottam and Gangashankar. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate referred the matter to the Police and on the 3rd of May last a report was made by the Sub-Inspector of Umreth that the sureties offered had land in the-village of Araj, and that they were ordinary me...
Kisondas Guru Laxmandas Bairagi Vs. Dhondu Walad Tukaram Narvade and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom542
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for possession of a house as owners, alleging a sale for Rs. 100 to plaintiff No. 2 by defendant No. 1. The trial Court found that there was no money consideration for the sale, and that as the plaintiff No. 2 had been the mistress of defendant No. 1, the real consideration for the transaction was past co-habitation. That was not the case made out in the plaint, and if, as we are told, the point has never been decided in this Court, we are decidedly of opinion now that past co-habitation will not be good consideration for the transfer of property. The facts of this case go even further, because it was not merely the case of plaintiff No. 2 being the mistress of defendant No. 1, but of the connection between the two being adulterous as plaintiff No. 2 had a husband living. Therefore it comes to this that the transaction was really a gift, and as the property was joint family property between the defendants, and there had been no partition, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »