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.
Satagauda Appanna Alagaudanavar Vs. Satappa Daeigauda Genapnavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR815; 57Ind.Cas.577
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff purchased from one Santu Chambhar what he thought was the equity of redemption in a certain property mortgaged by Santu Chambhar to the 1st defendant in 1893. When the suit was launched defendants 2 and 3 were in possession claiming that they had purchased the property from a brother of Santu Chambhar, and that Santu Chambhar had no interest in the property. Therefore they were made parties by the plaintiff, who thought that it was necessary to make them parties under Order XXXIV, Rule 1. The record in the print is somewhat defective as it does not appear what were the issues raised in the trial Court. But I find that the following issues were raised:-(1) Whether the defendants 2 and 3 are in possession through the 1st defendant; (2) whether the suit could lie in its present form against them in view of the finding on issue 1; and (3) what order should be passed.2. I do not find any decision of the trial Court on the 1st issue. All that appears...
Motilal Dayabhai Vs. Harilal Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR806; 57Ind.Cas.590
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to enforce their right of pre-emption in respect of the plaint house which is situated in Ahmedabad. An issue was raised whether the custom entitling a neighbour to pre-empt which was set up in the plaint was proved. The learned Judge found that it had been proved and passed a decree for pre-emption. The learned Judge has referred to a number of decisions both of this Court and of the Courts at Ahmedabad, the earliest case being that of Umbaram v. Raghoonath (1823) 2 Borr. 402. With regard to all these decisions it may be remarked generally that it does not seem to have been ever disputed that the custom did not exist. The cases seem all to have been heard and decided on the basis that the custom did exist, the only dispute between the parties being as to whether on the facts of each case there was a right to pre-empt, and whether the proper ceremonies had teen performed. Such being the case, as we have no evidence on the record adduced b...
Motilal Dayabhai Vs. Harilal Maganlal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom696
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to enforce their right of pre-emption in respect of the plaint house which is situated in Ahmedabad. An issue was raised whether the custom entitling a neighbour to pre-empt which was set up in the plaint was proved. The learned Judge found that it had been proved and passed a decree for pre-emption. The learned Judge has referred to a number of decisions both of this Court and of the Courts at Ahmedabad, the earliest case being that of Umbaram v. Rughoonath (1823) 2 Borr. 402 With regard to all these decisions it may be remarked generally that it does not seem to have been ever disputed that the custom did not exist. The cases seem all to have been heard and decided on the basis that the custom did exist, the only dispute between the parties being as to whether on the facts of each case there was a right to pre-empt, and whether the proper ceremonies had been performed. Such being the case, as We have no evidence on the record adduced by the ...
The Advocate General of Bombay Vs. Vithaldas Meghji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1005; 58Ind.Cas.996
Pratt, J.1. This is a suit filed by the Advocate General as representing a charitable trust-the; Anathahraina-created by the will of Hansraj Ludha. The plaint prayed for a declaration of the properties that were the subject-matter of the trust and for the removal of defendant No. 1 from the office of trustee and for the administration of the estates of Hansraj Ludha and of his wife and of the trust properties. But by consent the suit has been confined to one for declaration as to what properties are subject to the trust and for the preparation of a scheme for the administration of the Charity. The defendant No. 1 is the trustee and supports the Advocate General. The second defendant claims certain properties adversely to the trust find it is against him that the declaration is sought.2. Hansraj Ludha died at Jamnagar on the 27th day of May 1 1901, leaving a widow Hiravahu and a daughter Jivibai. Ilia property consisted of:---(a) A house in Bombay-the Ramdas Mala.(b) Two douses in Jamna...
Laxminarayan Sheshgiri Vs. Parvatibai Pabmeshvar Mudbiri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR399
Shah, J.1. In this case an application was made by Parvatibai to be appointed a guardian of the person of the minor Sagunabai on the 14th of December 1918. We are not concerned with the previous appointment of the guardian of the person of this minor. At this time there was a guardian of the property of the minor, but there was no guardian of the person of the minor. On that very day the District Judge made an order under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act with the consent of both the parties that ' the grandmother, in whose custody the girl must for the time being remain, do give security in Es. 1,000 that the girl will not be married without the permission of the Court first had'. Subsequently an application was made by Laxminarayan to be appointed a guardian of the person of this minor, and we are informed by the pleaders appearing in this case that both these applications are pending, and no order has still been made appointing any person as guardian of the person of the min...
S.D. Krishna Ayyangar Vs. S.V. Nallaperumal Pillai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR568
Viscount Finlay, J.1. The question in the present case is whether a charge given to the Secretary of a Limited Company upon unpaid calls can he enforced by him although not registered as required by Section 08 of the Act of 1882 (the Indian Companies Act). The difficulty in the case is occasioned by the Explanation appended to the section, which otherwise is on the same lines as the corresponding section in the English Act. It was held by the High Court of Madras that the terms of the Explanation rendered the charge not enforceable. Apart from the effect which the Explanation in the Indian Act may have in the case of a mortgage or charge to an officer of the Company,' it is clear that a mere failure to register does not under either the English or the Indian Act render a mortgage or charge on the property of the Company unenforceable.2. Section 68 of the Indian Act requires registration of all mortgages and charges specifically affecting property of the Company, and imposes a penalty u...
Laxminarayan Sheshgiri Haldipur Vs. Parvatibai Parmeshwar Mudbiri and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom690
Shah, J.1. In this, case an application was made by Parvatibai to be appointed a guardian of the person of the minor Sagimabai on the 14th of December 1918. We are not concerned with the previous appointment of the guardian of the person of this minor. At this time there was a guardian of the property of the minor, out there was no guardian of the person of the minor. On that very day the District Judge made an order snider Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act with the consent of both the parties that 'the grandmother, in whose custody the girl must for the time being remain, do give security in Rs. 1,000 that the girl will not be married without the permission, of the Court first had.' Subsequently an application was made by Laxminarayan to be appointed a guardian of the person of this minor, and we are informed by the pleaders appearing In this case that both these applications are pending, and no order has still been made appointment any person as guardian of the person of the ...
Laxminarayan Sheshgiri Vs. Parvatibai Parmeshvar Mudbiri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.79
1. In this case an application was made by Parvatibai to be appointed a guardian of the person of the minor Sagunabai on the 14th of December 1918. We are not concerned with the previous appointment of the guardian of the person of this minor. At this time there was a guardian of the property of the minor, but there was no guardian of the person of the minor, On that very day the District Judge made an order under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act with the consent of both the parties that 'the grandmother, in whose custody the girl must for the time being remain, do give security in Rs. 1,000 that the girl will not be married without the permission of the Court first had.' Subsequently an application was made by Laxminarayan to be appointed a guardian of the person of this minor, and we are informed by the Pleaders appearing in this case that both these applications are pending, and no order has still been made appointing any person as guardian of the person of the minor. On th...
Emperor Vs. Sadashiv Bab Habbu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR197
Shah, J.1. In this case several accused have been convicted under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act IV of 1887. In the course of the search under the Act not only were certain articles including cash found in the house attached, but also certain cash, ornaments and currency notes on the persons of the several accused were attached. The trial Magistrate has found on the evidence that the cash, ornaments and other articles except those mentioned in his judgment had been either used in gaming or intended to be used, and he has ordered them to be forfeited to Government under Section 8 of the Act.2. It is clear from the provisions of Section 8 and the decision in the case of Emperor v. Walli Mussaji I. L. R(1902) . 26 Bom. 641 : 4 Bom. L. R. 427 that the power of forfeiture extends only to securities for money and other articles seized in the house which are not instruments of gaming. It is clear from the first paragraph of the section that the convicting Magistrate...
Bai Rami Vs. Jaga Dullabh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR801; 57Ind.Cas.556
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by the 6th defendant in the suit asking us to exercise our powers under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The facts arc shown in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge dated the 25th January 1919:The applicant was served with summons on 3rd August 1918; she had to be present on the 18th October; she remained absent on the said date as well as on two following dates namely 8th November and 12th December. On 10th January she presented this application praying the Court to set aside the order to proceed with the suit ex parte against her passed on 18th October.2. The Judge said:The application was opposed by the plaintiff; after carefully considering applicant's affidavit I am not satisfied that she was justified in being absent for about more than five months after she was served with a summons. Conceding that she was ill on 18th October, she, ought to have moved the Court as soon as she was cured; not having chosen to do so, she i...