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.
Someshvar Jethalal Vs. Chunilal Nagesiivar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR790; 57Ind.Cas.544
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for the removal of such of the roots, stem and branches of the plaint mango tree as it encroached upon and overhung their land and thereby caused damage to the crop in the plaint land. The suit has been dismissed in two Courts, and in this Court we have not had the advantage of hearing counsel for the respondent. The facts of this case show that this tree, subject matter of the suit, grows partly oil the plaintiffs' land and partly on the defendant's land, and for certainly fifty years it has been considered to be the defendant's tree, and the defendant has enjoyed the fruits of it. These being the facts, the question arises whether the plaintiffs are entitled to cut off the branches and roots of the tree which overhang and grow on their land respectively. We have been referred to the decisions in Vishnu Jagannath Joshi v. Vasudeo Raghunath Oka : AIR1918Bom68 and Hari Krishna Joshi v. Shankar Vithal ILR (1894) 19 Bom. 420. No doubt in tho...
Bhau Mahadu Toraskak Vs. Vithal Dattatraya Pendharkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR793; 57Ind.Cas.549
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to get a declaration that the property in suit belonged to him, and that the defendants had no right to build on it, and prayed that the defendants might be ordered to remove their buildings on the suit property, and in default he might be allowed to remove the same. An issue was raised whether the defendants proved that they were Mirasi tenants, and that was found in their favour. But the Judge came to the conclusion that they had' no right to build on the plaintiff's ground, and gave the plaintiff the decree he had asked for.2. In appeal the learned appellate Judge came to the conclusion that whether the defendants were Mirasi tenants or permanent tenants or annual tenants, the question with regard to the buildings was the same. He certainly pointed out that what the learned Judge in the trial Court really meant was that the defendants had become permanent tenants of the land under the presumption arising from Section 83 of the Bombay La...
Nagindas Bhukhandas Vs. Ghelabhai Gulabdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR322
Crump, J.1. The appellant in this case appeals against an order of the District Judge of Surat sentencing him to three months' simple imprisonment under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (III of 1907).2. The facts are shortly as follows : The appellant Nagindas was in the employ of the B. B. & C.I. Railway Company. On November, 3, 1909, he was adjudged an insolvent under Section 16 of the Act, and a Receiver was appointed. In January 1918, he resigned his appointment with the Railway Company and drew from them a sum of Rs. 2,000 odd which stood to his credit in the books of the Railway Provident Fund. This money was not paid over to the Receiver and in the lower Court it was alleged that Rs. 1600 out of this sum had been paid by the insolvent to his wife. It is with reference to this transaction that the learned District Judge has held him guilty of a fraudulent act within the meaning of Section 48 (2) of the Act.3. The reasoning of the learned District Judge may be summarize...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›