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.
The Ahmedabad Municipality Vs. the Gujarat Ginning and Manufacturing C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom527
Norman Macleod, 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 sewer, 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 to le...
Dnyanu Pandu Chavan Vs. Tanu Balaram Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR390; 57Ind.Cas.113
Shah, J.1. The question of law argued in this second appeal is whether the adoption of Babu (defendant No. 11) by Tanu (defendant No. 2) is valid, according to Hindu law.2. The facts relating to this point are briefly these: One Balaram Gujar had three illegitimate sons, Pandu, Eaoji and Krishna. We are not concerned with Raoji at all. Krishna left a son named Dnyanu. He is found to have been adopted by Pandu in 1907. Pandu had a son Bala, who died in 1903 leaving two widows named Banu and Tanu. It appears from the recitals in the document of authority passed by Pandu that Tanu had au infant son who died some time before 1910. Bala died in union with his father. The infant son does not appear to have attained the age of ceremonial competence. In 1910 Pandu authorised Tanu to make an adoption. She adopted Babu in 1911. Panda died in 1913. Dnyanu, the adopted son of Pandu, filed the present suit claiming the property of Pandu to the exclusion of defendant 11.3. The question as to the val...
Bhimraj Ganpat Pawar Vs. Laxman Ramchandra Satbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR743; 57Ind.Cas.430
Norman Macleod, Kt. C.J.1. The property in question was attached by the defendant in this suit in execution of a decree against one Bhau Dadaji. Then the plaintiff sought to raise the attachment on the ground that the property belonged to him. The application to raise the attachment was rejected. That order was not final. It remained for the unsuccessful party, if he chose, to take proceedings in a regular suit to have it decided to whom the property belonged. So &a; the Judge in execution proceedings disallowed the present plaintiff's application, it lay upon him, if he wanted the execution proceedings to be stayed, to file a regular suit. The defendant claimed that the property belonged to his judgment-debtor on the ground that the transfers of his judgment-debtor were in fraud of the creditors, and so could be set aside at the instance of anybody defrauded under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Judge considered that defence on the merits and decided in favour of the d...
Laxmishankar Devshankar Vs. Hanjabhai Usufally
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR735; 57Ind.Cas.426
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The property to which this suit refers is situated in Ahmedabad and known as the Dudhadhari Vadi, which was managed by the Mohants of a certain temple. The last Mohant was one Surajbharthi who disappeared in 1886. Thereafter one of his sons Dattabharthi took his place until he went on a pilgrimage. In 1902 a report having been received that he was dead one Vaghbharthi was installed on the Gadi alleging that he was a Chela of Surajbharthi. One Shivbharthi claiming to be the Chela of Dattabharthi filed a suit in the Mamlatdar's Court for possession. Meanwhile, Dattabharthi returned and a decree was passed in Shivbharthia favour in 1904 under which Dattabharthi got possession of the Vadi. Dattabharthi and Shivbharthi mortgaged the property to one Shivnath in 1904 for Rs. 8,000, and again executed a fresh mortgage, which consolidated the first mortgage, on the 25th October 1904 for Rs. 5,000. Shivanth got possession of the property as mortgagee. Then Vaghbharthi...
Laxmishankar Devshankar Vs. Hamjabhai Usufally Vohra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom515
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The property to which this suit refers is situated in Ahmedabad and known as the Dudhadhari Vadi, which was managed by the Mohants of a certain temple. The last Mohant, was one Suraj-bharthi who disappeared in 1886. Thereafter one of his sons Dattabharthi took his place until he went on a pilgrimage. In 1902 a report having been received that he was dead one Waghbharthi was installed on the Gadi alleging that, he was a Chela of Surajbharthi. One Shivbharthi claiming to be the Chela of Dattabharthi filed a suit in the Mamlatdar's Court for possession. Meanwhile Dattabharthi returned and a decree was passed in Shivbharthi's favour in 1904 under which Dattabharthi got possession of the Vadi. Dattabharthi and Shivbharthi mortgaged the property to one Shivnath in 1904 for Rs. 3,000, and again executed a fresh mortgage, which consolidated the 1st mortgage, on the 25th October 1904 for Rs. 5,000. Shivnath got possession of the property as mortgagee. Then Waghbharthi fil...
Krishnaji Sakharam Deshpande Vs. Kashim Valad Mohidinsaheb Havaldar an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom500
Shah, J.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 ca...
Gurmallappa Mallappa Katti Vs. Mallappa Martandappa Teli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR725; 57Ind.Cas.417
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The facts of this case arc very clearly set out at p. 6 of the print.2. The plaintiffs are minors and in effect their mother as next friend has sued to set aside the sale-deed of the 17th July 1000 passed by her as their natural guardian. It has boon found by both the lower Courts that the deed was passed for legal purposes, but the sale-deed has been declared to be void on the ground that the sanction of the Court was necessary. This, on the facts stated, involves a confusion of ideas. It is true that on an award decree against the plaintiffs' father execution proceedings wore commenced, against the minors represented by one Baslingapa as their guardian ad litem, after which terms of compromise were arranged. An application to the Court was presented by both parties intimating they had entered into a compromise. The plaintiffs' application was signed however not by Baslingapa but by their mother. The Court recorded it, without granting or rejecting it. Clea...
Hardit Singh Vs. Gurmukh Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR550
1. The Chief Court admitted the appeal on February 13, 1915, but did not notify the respondents other than Gurmukh Singh of the admission. Such notification was required by Order XLV, Rule 8 (b). The Registrar of the Pan jab Chief Court has certified that the respondents other than Gurmukh Singh were not served with notice, and that this was duo to oversight in his office. Gurmukh Singh has sworn that lie did not inform the other respondents of the admission of the appeal, and all the other respondents have filed affidavits that they did not know of the admission, or of the despatch of the printed record to England. Had they known, they would have instructed agents to defend the appeal. Under these circumstances they are entitled to a rehearing : Mussumat Ranee Sumo Moyee. v. Shooshee Mokhee Burmonia Reference was made to Rule. 43 of the Rules of the Judicial Committee, 1908.2. Dabe, for the opposite party appellants, submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case showed that a...
Govindlal Maneklal Vs. Ichha Vagha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR723; 57Ind.Cas.414
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to obtain a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession of 5 Gunthas of land on which traces of their houses were situated towards the Northern and Southern sides of the field described in the plaint. It appears that the plaintiffs leased to the defendant portion of a certain Survey Number on the 22nd October 1905. They referred to a certain field out of which 37 Gunthas were leased to the defendant, reserving, as the lease says, two Gunthas to the plaintiffs. Out of that one Guntha was towards the North and one Guntha was towards the South. The plaintiff might reside on that land. It appears that the plaintiffs had obtained leave to build before the date of the lease on two Gunthas, but after the lease was given to the defendant, it was found that they had built not on two Gunthas only, but on five Gunthas altogether, and in 1912, the Collector ordered them to remove the buildings on the additional three Gunthas...
Rustam Sorabji Powwalla Vs. Ramchandra Balaji Gaikwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR860; 57Ind.Cas.993
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit filed under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act by the three plaintiffs to recover possession of certain premises from the defendant. The first two plaintiffs were the owners of the property, and the landlords of the defendant. They had agreed to give a lease to the 3rd plaintiff for a period of 999 years under which the 3rd plaintiff covenanted to erect certain buildings on the land. The land admittedly, as it stands at present, contains buildings of a very inferior character, and the 3rd plaintiff has undertaken to erect pucca buildings provided with all modern conveniences which undoubtedly will much improve the property, and provide accommodation for more persons than are able to be accommodated in the present buildings.2. The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that he was protected by Section 9, Clause (2), of Act II of 1918. Ha contended that the premises must be required by the landlord for the erection of build...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »