Mumbai Court December 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.
Damu Diga Vs. Vakrya Nathu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR328
Crump, J.1. The only question for our decision is whether the lower Court has rightly held that this suit is barred by the decision in Suit No. 185 of 1915 of the same Court. That the present plaintiff is the representative in interest of the plaintiff in that suit is not denied. The then defendants were three in number, and the present defendant was one of them. The question is what is the nature of the order disposing of that suit and what is its effect. The terms of the order made clearly show that the Judge who made that order dismissed the suit for plaintiff's default. The order was made at an adjourned hearing and the Court must be taken to have acted under Order XVII, Rule 2, and to have based its order on the provisions of Order IX. It was argued that Order XVII, Rule 3 applied but that is not so. The terms of the order show that the suit was dismissed on account of plaintiff's default and on no other ground. The decision in Chandramathi Ammal v. Narayanasami Aiyar ILR (1990) M...
Bhagoji Ganu Raut Vs. Babu Balu Kadam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR410; 57Ind.Cas.135
Shah, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case claimed to be the Vatandar barbers of Velaneshwar and five other adjoining villages and as such claimed the exclusive right to officiate as barbers on ceremonial occasions in those villages. They sued the defendant for an injunction and damages in consequence of his having rendered services as a barber on some ceremonial occasion to certain Bhandaris on the 11th March 1915.2. The defendant denied the exclusive right of the plaintiffs to officiate on all ceremonial occasions and claimed to be a Vatandar barber himself in the said villages.3. The trial Court found all the issues, except one relating to injunction, in favour of the plaintiffs and passed a decree in their favour for damages.4. The defendant appealed to the District Court and the plaintiffs filed cross-objections. The learned Assistant Judge, who heard the appeal, held that the suit was maintainable and that the plaintiffs were Vatandar barbers. He held, however, that the expression 'V...
Motichand Magandas Vs. Keshav Appaji Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR406; 57Ind.Cas.129
Shah, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit, which is in form a suit to recover money due on a Khata, but in substance a suit to recover the amount due in respect of certain contracts entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendants.2. The trial Court found that the contracts between the plaintiffs and the defendants were wagering contracts, and that certain contracts which the plaintiffs had entered into with third parties to cover some of the contracts between themselves and the defendants were not shown to be wagering contracts. It accordingly decreed the plaintiffs' claim in respect of such contracts. The defendants appealed to the District Court and that Court held on the evidence that the common intention of the parties (the plaintiffs and the defendants) was to deal in differences only and to wager, and that it was a matter of indifference whether with a view to avoid the risk of certain contracts with the defendants the plaintiffs entered into contracts with third ...
Nageshar Baksh Singh Vs. Ganesha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR596
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of date the 8th August, 1916, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which reversed a judgment and decree dated the 23rd December, 1913, of the Subordinate Judge of Gonda.2. In the suit which is brought the plaintiffs pray for a decree for possession of the village of Sonahra, Pargana Paharapur, Tahsil and District Gonda, by cancellation of a certain sale-deed thereof executed on the 30th December, 1871, in favour of Thakur Mirttunjai Bakhsh Singh, now represented by the appellant. The grantors of the deed were three Hindu pardanashin ladies, Musammats Basanta, Rani and Maharani.3. A pedigree is given in the papers, which gives the family descent from one Bishan Pershad. Bishan was the owner of inter alia, two villages, Harsinghpur and Sonahra. No question arises with regard to Harsinghpur in this appeal. It appears, however, that a question analogous to that now raised was settled relative to that village over thirty ...
Fakirappa Limanna Patil Vs. Lumanna Mahadu Dhamnekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR680; 58Ind.Cas.257
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal has now been fully argued, and an opportunity has arisen for deciding a question which has given rise to a considerable conflict of judicial opinion, namely, whether a Hindu minor on his attaining majority can sue to recover possession of property transferred by his mother acting as his natural guardian during his minority without suing to set aside the transfer and therefore coming within the provisions of Article 44 of the Limitation Act. That question was answered in the negative by Beaman and Heaton JJ. in Luxmava v. Rachappa where the plaintiff had bought certain property from which had been sold by Mudkappa's mother during his minority to the defendant, and reference may be made to Mahableshvar Krishnappa v. Ramchandra Mangesh ILR (1913) 38 Bom. 94 where K as manager of the family appointed a Muktyar who sold Mulgeni rights. K's eldest son after attaining majority sued to recover possession alleging that the sale was void. It was held that ...
Nurmahomed Gulam Rasul Vs. the Surat City Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR838
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff is the owner of a lime-kilu situated on land near the Variavi Gate at Surat. On the 11th November 1914 a notice dated the 28th October was served by the defendant Municipality on the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, requiring him to stop working the said kiln on the ground that it was likely to cause a nuisance. The plaintiff, therefore, has brought this suit for a declaration that the order of the defendant Municipality was illegal, wanton, capricious and oppressive, and for a permanent injunction retraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff in carrying on his work in the afore-said kiln and costs. The trial Court decreed that the plaintiffs kiln was not a nuisance within the meaning of Section 151 (1) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, which the Municipality had a right to order to be discontinued.2. The District Judge, on appeal, reversed that decree and directed that the plaintiff's ...
Nur Mahomed Gulam Rasul Vs. the Surat City Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.988
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff is the owner of a lime-kiln situated on land near the Variavi Gate at Surat. On the 11th November 1914 a notice, dated the 28th October was served by the defendant municipality on the plaintiff under Section 151 of the Bombay District Municipal Act, 1901, requiring him to stop working the said kiln on the ground that it was likely to cause a nuisance. The plaintiff, therefore, has brought this suit for a declaration that the order of the defendant municipality was illegal, wanton, capricious and oppressive, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff in carrying on his work in the aforesaid kiln and costs. The trial Court decreed that the plaintiff's kiln was not a nuisance, within the meaning of Section 151(1) of the Bombay District Municipal Act, which the municipality had a right to order to be discontinued.2. The District Judge, on appeal, reversed that decree and directed that the plaintiff's sui...
Vasudeo Ganesh Joshi Vs. Anupram Haribhai Trivedi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR808; 57Ind.Cas.592
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 1,800 as damages from the defendant for refusing to carry out the contract to prepare and supply to the plaintiff 20,000 copies of the plaint picture. The breach is admitted, but the defendant contends that the contract came within the provisions of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and as the agreement is fraudulent, or involved or implied injury to some person, its object or consideration is unlawful, and the contract is, therefore, void. The defendant must depend for this contention on the argument that as there was in England a firm which had a copyright in this picture, it was a fraud on them to print the picture in India.2. It was first contended that the Fine Arts Copyright Act of 1862 (25 & 26 Vic. c. 68) had been extended to British India, but it is quite clear from the decision in Graves & Co. Limited v. Gorrie [1903] A.C. 496 to which we have been referred, that the Act does not extend to any part of the Briti...
Ganpatrao Apaji Jagtap Vs. Bapu Tukaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR831; 58Ind.Cas.574
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to redeem the plaint land which had been mortgaged to the father of the 1st defendant by three brothers Balvantrao, Namdeo and Tatya by a deed of mortgage for Rs. 700 on the 8th August 1805. One Ramji purported to buy the equity of redemption by a sale-deed in 1867, and the present plaintiff is an assignee from Ramji. After the three brothers had executed the deed in favour of Rataji in 1867, two of them Tatya and Namdoo purported to sell to two persons Savlya and Pandu their right in the equity of redemption, and thereafter in execution of a decree against Balvantrao his right in the equity of redemption was put up for sale and bought by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant also alleges that as Savlya and Pandu filed a redemption suit and after getting a decree for redemption failed to redeem the property, their right to redeem was barred, and therefore, the 1st defendant became entitled absolutely to the mortgaged property.2...
Ganpatrao Appaji Jagtap Vs. Bapit BIn Tukaram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom710
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to redeem the plaint land which had been mortgaged to the father of the 1st defendant by three brothers Balvantrao Namdeo and Tatya by a deed of mortgage for Rs. 700' on the 8th August 1865. One Ramji purported to buy the equity of redemption by a sale-deed in 1867, and the present plaintiff is an assignee from Ramji. After the three brothers had executed the deed in favour of Ramji in 1807, two of them Tatya and Namdeo purported to sell to two persons Savlya and Pandu their right in the equity of redemption, and thereafter in execution of a decree against Balvantrao his right in the equity of redemption was put up for sale and bought by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant also alleges that as Savlya and Pandu filed a redemption suit and after getting a decree for redemption failed to redeem the property, their right to redeem was barred, and there-lore the 1st defendant became' entitled absolutely to the mortgaged property.2. The...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »