Mumbai Court August 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.
Natvarlal Girdharlal Vs. Ranchhod Bhagwandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR71
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Vithaldas and his son Bhagwandas were members of a Hindu joint family. Bhagwandas died in 1871 leaving a widow Ichhubai and a daughter Bhikhibai. Vithaldas died in 1875; the sole surviving coparcener.2. On the 3rd May 1875 he made a will. He left all his property, inoveable and iminoveable, to his daughter-in-law Ichhubai for life. But he said 'if she likes she may take upon her lap an adopted son. In case a boy is adopted her adopted son will become the owner of the whole of my property.' At the end of _ the clause are the words 'in case Bhikhibai happens to have a son she (Ichhubai) should not take a boy in adoption.'3. Clause 3 is as follows:-If Ichhubai happens to die without having taken a boy in adoption then all that property mentioned in the first clause shall after her death become of the ownership of Bhikhibai, the daughter of my deceased son Bhagwan by his first wife and the wife of Tribhowan Varjiwan and of the sons that may be born to her; n...
Budhmal Kevalchand Vs. Rama Yesu Sangle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR68
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 500 for principal and Rs. 500 for interest, in all Rs. 1000, by sale of the property mortgaged by the father of the first defendant and the grandfather of defendants 2 to 4 to plaintiff's assignors Chaturbhur and Gumanchand Marwaris on the 28th October, 1870. It appears that the equity of redemption was sold in 1883 to the father of defendant 5 and another. Those two purchasers separated. Half the equity of redemption came to the fifth defendant, one-fourth to Kashi Ramji, and one-fourth to Dada Kashi, by sale from Kashi Ramji. Kashi Ramji and Dada Kashi ought to have been made parties to the suit under Order XXXIV, Rule 1, of the Civil Procedure Code, but the plaintiff refused to make them parties, because as a matter of fact his claim against them had become time-barred. He now seeks to throw the whole burden of the mortgage on half the property, the equity of redemption in which came to defendant 5. An exactly similar cas...
Bai Nathi Vs. Narshi Dullabh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR64
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the properties described in Schedules C E F attached to the plaint, and mesne profits, alleging that the plaint properties formed part of a Bhag in Rahad in Waghra Taluka. The 1st plaintiff claims as the daughter of Bapu who is alleged to have become the owner of the Bhag as a survivor between himself and Desai Purshottam his first cousin. The 2nd defendant was the son of Bai Lalu the sister-in-law of the plaintiff's mother. The 1st defendant claims title to the plaint property through Desai Manor, a distant relation of Bapu, and also in virtue of a transfer from Gadbarl, the 2nd defendant. The defendants 3 to 5 claim to be in possession through Bapu's cousin Desai Purshottam, and the (the defendant claims through Desai Manor,2. The suit was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that it had been decided in a former suit, in which the 1st, plaintiff and defendants 1,3,4 and 5 were parties, that f...
Narhari Hari Vaidya Vs. Ambabai Balkrishna Sansarikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR57
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint property, Ks. 330-8-0 for arrears of rent, and future rent at Ha. 10 per month until possession, alleging that the property was ancestral property of the plaintiff; that it was almost completely built by his father Hari; that at the time of Hari's death building materials to the extent of Its. 800 were left; that Hari died on the 16th July 1904; that after Hari's death the affairs of the minor plaintiff were looked after by other persons; that Aumiji this deceased father of the defendants undertook to complete the plaint house on condition that the building materials were to be used; that the house was to be kept in repairs out of rent; that Annaji incurred expense to the extent of .Rs. 100 to 150 in completing the house, that after Annaji's death in 1912 although plaintiffs guardian demanded possession, possession was not delivered.2. The trial Court decreed that the defendants should put the plaintiff ...
The Viramgam Municipality Vs. Bhaichand Damodar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR61
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Municipality from removing the disputed otla that he had raised, alleging that the defendant's notice of the 23rd October 1913 for its removal was illegal and 'ultra vires. The very simple fact appears from the evidence that the plaintiff built this otla, without obtaining permission of the Municipality under Section 96 of the Bombay District Municipalities Act, and having built without that leave, the Municipality were entitled under sub-clause (5) 'to issue a notice requiring such building or addition to be altered or removed, and under h. 154(0) they were entitled to give notice that if the plaintiff did not comply with the notice to remove, the work would be done by the Municipality at the plaintiff's costs.2. The main question which seems to have been tried in both the lower Courts was whether the ground on which the otla was built was part of a public street or not. The first issue...
Rukminibai Krishnarao Tambvekar Vs. Laxmibai Narayan Tambvekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR254
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued the defendants to recover a certain sum said to have been wrongfully withheld by defendant No. 10 and for a perpetual injunction against the BAI defendants, restraining defendant No. 10 from receiving the dues and defendants 1 to 9 from paying the dues to her in respect of the property in suit. The relief was claimed on the footing that the plaintiff was entitled to the Inam rights in the property in suit under a conveyance in his favour dated the 18th of September 1911 by one, Ramkrishna, who traced his title to the said rights under a deed of gift in favour of his father dated the 13th of October 1880. This deed of gift was passed by the members of the Tambvekar family. The gift was described as a 'religious Agrahar Inain.' The land and the house described in the deed were given by way of gift to the donee in these terms: 'So you, your sons and grandsons and succeeding generations should enjoy the said land and house and ground &c.; accordin...
Sadashiv Ramchandra Datar Vs. Trimbak Keshav Vaze
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR266
Shah, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are these:The father of the present plaintiff mortgaged the house in suit on the 4th of December 1890 to defendant No. 1 for Rs. 1,000 with interest at 6 per cent. The plaintiff's father died in 1899 leaving a son, the present plaintiff and a widow the plaintiff's mother. In 1901 the mortgage claim was referred to arbitration by the defendant No. 1 and the mother of the plaintiff who was then a minor. An award was made in May 1901 under which the minor represented by his mother was to pay Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 200 and odd as interest with further interest at 6 per cent, on the principal within one month and that the property was to be sold in case the money was not paid within the time specified. The present defendant No. 1 applied to the Court on the 12th of June 1901 to have a decree in terms of the award, and the present plaintiff's mother filed a statement on the 13th of June 1901 in which she consented to a decree being ...
Dharma Lakshman Gharat Vs. Sakharam Ramjirao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR52
Shah, J.1. The question of law rained in this second appeal on the facts found by the lower Courts is whether an illegitimate son of a Sudra can inherit the separate property of his father's legitimate son as a brother.2. The facts are that one Ganpatrao had a son Daulatrao by his first wife, two sons Eaojirao and Balvantrao by his second wife, and an illegitimate son Dhakojirao by a kept mistress. Daulatrao was a separated member of the family and had acquired the property in suit; he died without an issue. The plaintiff claims his Sai property under a sale deed passed in his favour by the sons of 5 Raojirao, Balvantrao having died without any male issue. The defendant claims it under a sale deed by Dhakojirao. The contest between the two purchasers depends upon the rights of their respective vendors to inherit Daulatrao's property according to the Hindu law. The parties, whose right of inheritance we are concerned with, are Sudras. Both the lower Courts have decided against the defen...
The Rheinfels
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1116
Marten, J.1. This is an application for condemnation of the German Steamship Rheinfels, her freight and stores and such of her cargo as has not been delivered. She arrived in the vicinity of Bombay harbour as long ago as the 7th August 1914 in the morning. She belonged to the Hansa line; her gross tonnage was 5,512 tons, and her speed according to her officers was 10 knots. She was fitted with wireless apparatus and was bound for Bombay, her last port of call having been Aden, some 1650 miles away. War between England and Germany began at 11 P.M. on 4th August. She, therefore, left her last port before the outbreak of war.2. Under an order of this Court of the 4th September 1914, an order was made in somewhat; similar terms to that in The Chile (1914) P. 212. It pronounced that the steamship Rheinfels belonged at the time of the capture and seizure thereof to enemies of the Crown, and it ordered the detention of the ship and all her stores until further order. The ship herself was hand...
Ramnath Chhoturam Vs. Goturam Radhakisan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1179
Macleod, C.J.1. This was a partition suit filed in 1909. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs on the one hand are entitled to one-half of the plaint properties, while the defendants are entitled to the other half. A preliminary decree was passed, and it was referred to a Commissioner to take the accounts of the family property. On his report the defendants filed certain objections, and again it was referred to a second Commissioner to consider the accounts in the light of defendants' objections and he took the accounts and made up a final balance sheet. The result was as shown in the final decree of the learned Subordinate Judge at page 3--'The defendants shall pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 4,620-10-0 as mesne profits of the Nipani lands for the years 1905 to 1909. They shall also pay Rs. 2,878-8-0 and Rs. 704 and Rs. 257.'2. The plaintiffs appealed, and though it does not appear in their objections which they filed what their real objections were to the decree, yet now their counsel has...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »