Mumbai Court November 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.
Natvarlal Maneklal Vs. Bai Chanchal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR768; 57Ind.Cas.443
Heaton, J.1. We are here dealing with a matter similar to that which has on several occasions been before a Bench of this Court. A Hindu widow brought a suit, and her allegations were that her deceased husband, and her husband's brother, originally joint owners of the family estate, had separated and divided that estate, and the widow sued to recover her husband's sharo. If the allegations in the plaint were true the family property would have had to be ascertained, and what practically amounted to a fresh partition would have had to be made. But however that may be, the nature of the suit is quite plain. The plaintiff in the suit was a widow. She maintained that her husband and his brother had separated in estate, and she claimed to recover her husband's share. She had a daughter named Chanchal, no son, and consequently the daughter was the nearest reversioner at that time to whatever might prove to be the widow's deceased husband's estate. The original defendant in that suit was the ...
Chhanubhai Mansukhi Vs. Dahyabhai Govind
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR774; 57Ind.Cas.530
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal deals with the question whether an appellate Court can allow a plaintiff appealing against an order dismissing his suit to withdraw his suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. In this case the plaintiff had brought a previous suit which was dismissed. On appeal when the respondent was duly represented by his pleader the appellate Court allowed a withdrawal and recorded its reasons for so doing. Now when the plaintiff has brought this suit, he is met with the plea of res judicata. The plea is based on the argument that the appellate Court had no jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to withdraw the previous suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit. The appellant has relied upon a decision of this Court in Eknath v. Banoji ILR (1911) 35 Bom. 261 : 13 Bom. L.R. 237 There the facts were that the appeal had not been admitted, and before the admission the Court in effect set aside the decree dismissing the suit and allowed the plaintiff to withdraw his s...
Jeshankae Revashankar Vs. Bai Divali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR771; 57Ind.Cas.525
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This litigation has arisen from the disappearance of one Lallu, who had mortgaged his property to Motilal Nathu. In 1913 Jugal, the first cousin of Lallu, purported to sell the equity of redemption to Jeshankar Rewashankar, the 2nd defendant in this suit. In 1914 the 2nd defendant filed a suit against the 1st defendant for redemption, and in 1915 this suit was filed by Diwali the wife of Jamnadas, a more remote relation of Lallu than Jugal. It was admitted that she could only succeed if she could prove that the sale of the equity of redemption to the 2nd defendant was invalid. In the trial Court the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. In the lower appellate Court the plaintiff got a decree for redemption and the 2nd defendant was restrained from in any way interfering with the plaintiff redeeming and recovering possession of the plaint property as above directed.2. One point to which the attention of the Court was not directed was whether the sale by Jugal in 19...
Surajprasad Dwarkadas Vs. Karmali Abdulmiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR777; 57Ind.Cas.532
Norman Mucleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant for Rs. 216-12-8 being the contribution claimable from the defendant in respect of repairs to a well jointly owned by the parties. It is admitted that if this suit can come within Article 61 of the India a Limitation Act the claim is time-barred. On the face of it, it is not a claim for compensation for breach of a contract in writing registered. As a matter of fact this well was jointly owned, was falling into a state of dilapidation, and the Municipality gave notice to the parties to fill it in. They were not able to do that. Then the plaintiff's brother requested that the Municipality might repair the well. Accordingly they did so, and the plaintiff deposited a certain sum for the expenses. Clearly, therefore, this is a claim in contribution, and I may refer to Rustomji's Limitation Act at page 367 where he deals with this question. He says:In other words Article 116 applies only where the right of a...
Supdu Dhodu Gujar Vs. Madhavrao Jivram Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR780; 57Ind.Cas.534
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for a declaration that what appeared to be a sale deed of the plaint property was merely a mortgage deed, and that he was entitled to redeem the property. The parties arrived at an amicable settlement and in accordance with a compromise application filed by them a consent decree was recorded. The terms are set out at p. 1 of the print. It will be seen that with regard to one Survey Number the plaintiff had to pay Rs, 1100 to the defendant within one month from the date of the consent decree. If the above amount was not paid, the defendant was entitled to retain possession of the suit number as owner. In any event he was entitled to remain in possession until the February following for the purpose of removing the crop he had sown. The plaintiff made default and the defendant claimed that he was entitled to retain the property under the terms of the decree. The plaintiff paid in Rs. 1500 for both the properties on the 26th Novem...
Kisandas Laxmandas Bairagi Vs. Dhondu Tukakam Narvade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR762; 57Ind.Cas.472
Norman Macleod, Kt., 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 cohabitation. That was not 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 cohabitation 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 conies 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...
Desaibhai Jorabhai Vs. Ishwar Jeshing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR764; 57Ind.Cas.447
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. These are companion appeals in two suits which arose out of one Dola Nana selling certain property first to one Desaibhai and then to one Ishwar. The sale to Desaibhai was oral, and therefore, the property being worth more than Rs. 100, Desaibhai obtained no title to the property, but he got possession, and on whatever ground the suit may have been [based, if he had filed a suit to get a registered sale-deed, I have no doubt the Court would have made an order compelling Dola to execute a sale-deed in his favour. After the oral sale to Desaibhai, and after Desaibhai had been put in possession, Dola sold to Ishwar. Before the sale-deed to Ishwar was registered, Desaibhai put in a petition before the Sub-Registrar stating that he was in possession, and asking the Sub-Registrar to refuse to register the sale-deed to Ishwar. Therefore Ishwar had distinct notice of the sale to Desaibhai, and of the fact that Desaibhai was in possession. Therefore there was an obst...
Balgauda Laxmangauda Patil Vs. Mallappa Virupaxappa Tubli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR759; 57Ind.Cas.440
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The decree of the lower appellate Court was perfectly correct. The facts are sot out at page 2. The learned Judge has properly appreciated the rules which refer to the case. When a decree has been transferred to the Collector for execution, and he has put up the property for sale, and it has been sold, then he has a certain power to confirm the sale. That was given to him by Rule 16(2) at page 106 of the Civil Court Manual, namely, 'The power referred to in paragraph 1 of Section 312 of the Code of 1882 (present Order XXI, Rule 92(1) of the Code of 1908) to pass an order confirming a sale if no application to set aside the sale has been made within the time limited by law, or if every application so made has been disallowed' and Rule 17 provides that the application to set aside a sale, if it is made within the time limited by law to the Collector, shall be referred to the civil Court. It follows then that once an application is made within the time limited ...
The Ahmedabad Municipality Vs. the Gujerat Ginning and Manufacturing C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR747; 57Ind.Cas.433
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff-company, which carries on business in Ahmedabad, sued to recover from the Committee of Management appointed by Government for the Ahmedabad Municipality Rs. 4, 709-9-0, which was the amount that they had paid to the defendants as a special sanitary cess directed to be paid by the defendants, which it was alleged the defendants had no right Whatever to levy. The facts for the purpose of the case are as follows. The Municipality have provided a main sewer along the road on which the plaintiffs' premises abut. The plaintiffs have on their premises private latrines for their operatives, and previous to the period in question in this suit, they cleansed those latrines by manual labour. Then it appeared to them that it would be more convenient if they connected their latrines with the municipal sower, and they were allowed to do so. The plaintiffs were thereafter called upon to pay a special sanitary cess which the defendants claimed to be entitled t...
irbasappa Mallappa Bilehal Vs. Basangowda Fakirgowda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR746; 57Ind.Cas.432
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner sued the opponents in the Mamlatdar's Court at Navalgund for an injunction to restrain thorn from disturbing and obstructing the petitioner in the possession of the eastern moiety of R.S. No. 21 in the village of Umachagi in the Hubli Taluka of the Dharwar District. The Mamlatdar, relying upon E., tenancy register of the Record of Rights, and other documentary and oral evidence recorded in the case, found that the petitioner was in actual possession of the land in suit; that the opponents were obstructing him and that such obstruction first commenced within six months before the 30th August 1917 when the suit was filed by the petitioner. Therefore the Mamlatdar issued an injunction as had been prayed for by the petitioner. The opponent applied in revision to the Collector of Dharwar under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. The Collector took a different view of the evidence and held that the opponent Basangowda was the owner of the land...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »