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.
Tairamiya Pirsaheb Patarjet Vs. Shibelisaheb Fakirsaheb Dundage
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR802
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit for redemption against a large number of defendants to redeem certain Survey Numbers from a mortgage executed by the plaintiff's father to certain mortgagees. A decree was passed by the lower Court declaring that there was nothing duo on the plaint mortgage and directing that the plaintiff should recover possession of the plaint mortgaged lands, except the mortgaged portions of Survey Nos. 95, 104 and 525 from the defendants that might be in possession of the same. The plaintiff's claim for possession of plaint portions of Survey Nos. 95, 104 and 525 was dismissed.2. In appeal the lower appellate Court has held that the plaintiff can recover possession of those three Survey Nos. 95, 104 and 525 upon paying what might be found due to defendants Nos. 19, 23, 24 and 25 on an account being taken under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. These particular defendants have now appealed. They claim that the plaintiff's suit as against them is barr...
Taramiya Pirsaheb Patarjet and ors. Vs. Shibelisaheb Fakirsaheb Dundag ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1919
Reported in: 57Ind.Cas.568
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This was a suit for redemption against a large number of defendants to redeem certain survey numbers from a mortgage executed by the plaintiff's father to certain mortgagees. A decree was passed by the lower Court, declaring that there was nothing due on the plaint mortgage and directing that the plaintiff should recover possession of the plaint mortgaged lands, except the mortgaged portions of Survey Nos. 95, 104 and 525, from the defendants that might be in possession of the same. The plaintiff's claim for possession of plaint portions of Survey Nos. 95, 104 and 525 was dismissed.2. In appeal the lower Appellate Court has held that the plaintiff can recover possession of those three Survey Nos. 95, 101 and 525 upon paying what might be found due to defendants Nos. 19, 23, 24 and 25 on an account being taken under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. These particular defendants have now appealed. They claim that the plaintiffs' suit as against them is barred ...
Sadashiv Bab Habbu Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.864
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 26 B. 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 may order all instrum...
Nawab Bahadur Muhammad Rustam Ali Khan Vs. the Municipal Committee of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR563
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Chief Court of the Punjab, dated the 12th April, 1916, reversing a decree of the Court of the District Judge, Karnal, dated the 28rd December, 1912.2. The respondents in the appeal are the Municipal Committee of Karnal City. The proceedings had reference to an alleged public street in Karnal. The District Judge affirmed, and the decree of the Chief Court disaffirmed, the existence of such a public street.3. The municipality has made no appearance, by Counsel at the Bar of the Board. Their Lordships are in the position of having to decide what ex facie is an import in question of public right, in the absence of those who in the ordinary course would defend it. This has added to the difficulties of the case.4. By Section 3, Sub-section 13, of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, ' street' is defined to mean-Any road, footway, square, court, alley or passage, accessible whether permanently or temporarily, to the public, whether a throughfare or...
Mina Winsor Vs. E. Winsor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR396; 57Ind.Cas.116
Shah, J.1. In this case on the application of Miss E. Winsor for Letters of Administration of the estate of her deceased father, the District Judge granted the Letters of Administration to her on the 6th of September 1918. There were other sisters of the applicant who either did not appear or did not oppose the application. It is not clear from the record as to what exactly happened on the 1st of October 1918; but an order was made, apparently with the consent of the sister, who is the appellant before us, and of the pleader who appeared for the original applicant, directing that all the houses in question should be advertised and auctioned, the exact arrangement being settled between the parties. On the 14th of October a further application was put in on behalf of the original applicant asking for certain modification of the order of the 1st of October. After hearing the parties the learned District Judge made an order on the 3rd of December 1918, directing that the family house shoul...
ibrahim Harun Jaffer Vs. Jusuf HussaIn Jaffer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR798; 57Ind.Cas.551
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to set aside a decree directing an award between the parties to be tiled. The ground on which he asked for this relief, as it appears in the plaint, was that the decree in terms of the award was passed on the 7th January 1913 ex parte without notice of the date of hearing being served on the plaintiff. It may be that there were vague allegations of misconduct and fraud in the plaint, but there were no particulars given of such fraud as is required by the rules of pleading, and it is quite clear that the case went to trial only on the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to have the award decree set aside on the ground that it was made ex parte. The learned Judge in the lower Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to have the ox parte decree in suit 377 of 1912 set aside and awarded the claim with costs. Now it is perfectly well-recognised that it is only on certain grounds that the Court will entertain a suit to set a...
Lala Mathu Mal Vs. Musammat Durga Kunwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR553
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 27th January, 1916, of the High Court at Allahabad, which modified a decree, dated the 8th July, 1914, of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Aligarh.2. In the suit in which this appeal has arisen, the appellants hero or those whom they represent were defendants, and the plaintiff was Musammat Durga Kunwar, who was the respondent to this appeal but is now dead ; her personal representative is now the respondent. The suit was brought on the 8th July, 1909, by Musammat Durga Kunwar to obtain a decree for the sale of certain immovable property within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, and was based upon a mortgage of the property dated the 12th June, 1879, of which she became the assignee on the 21st May, 1909, by an assignment from the representatives of one Murli Dhar, to whom the mortgage of the 12th June, 1879, had been granted; his mortgage was the second mortgage on the property. The property had been mo...
Radha Kishun Vs. Khurshed Hossein
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR557
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is one brought by the appellant, Radha Kishun, for the realisation of his mortgage security by sale, and the only question now remaining for decision is whether the appellant's claim to four villages which form a part of n his security is barred by the plea of res judicata.2. The Additional Subordinate Judge of Mozufferpur and on appeal the High Court of Calcutta have decided adversely to him. He has accordingly preferred this appeal.3. There are two groups of contesting respondents who may be conveniently described as the Sheikhs and the Sahus. The Sheikhs claim the two villages called Barnihar and Lachnowta, the Sahus those named Pandharia and Gamharia.4. The validity of the Sheikhs' claim to the two villages of Barnihar and Lachnowta is beyond dispute and the High Court's conclusion with regard to them must be uphold.5. To the contest as to the other two villages, however, different considerations apply.6. By an instrum...
Balubhai Vijbhukhandas Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR785; 57Ind.Cas.538
Norman Maclaod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit which was filed by the plaintiffs against the Secretary of State for India in Council was one of a very peculiar nature. The plaintiffs had sued the Surat Municipality and the Deputy Collector, the cause of action being an alleged illegal removal of the plaintiffs1 otta, from their house in Surat. Then the plaintiffs served a notice of the suit against the Secretary of State for damages for the tort committed by the defendant's servant, the Deputy Collector, With that notice the plaintiffs sent two documents, one being a typewritten copy of their Sanad or titles-deed with regard to the house in question which was prepared by their pleader; and the second a certified copy which had been supplied to them by the Survey Office on the 22nd November 1912. The notice of suit was sent on the 11th February 1916. On the 7th of June 1916, plaintiffs applied for the return of these two copies,' and were referred by the Under-Secretary to Government to the Coll...
Maina Hari Tarde Vs. Shankar Moru Tarde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR787; 57Ind.Cas.540
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff a minor filed this suit by his next friend for an account under Section 36 of the Guardians and Wards Act, VIII of 1890. The 1st defendant is the guardian of the property appointed by the District Court of Satara. The defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons of the 1st defendant and are alleged to be managing the minor's property under the 1st defendant. The trial Court took an account and directed that the defendants should pay the minor plaintiff' 's next friend the sum of Rs. 540 only and the costs of this suit. In appeal that decree was confirmed.2. The only point which has been taken in Second Appeal is that the whole of this proceeding should be avoided because the plaintiff's next friend did :not obtain the leave of the Court under Section 36 of the Guardians and Wards Act before he filed this suit. Leave as a matter of fact was obtained on the 26th January 1910 before the suit came on for hearing. There are cases in which the failure to obt...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »