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.
Gurushiddswami Vs. Parawa Dundaya Narendra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR49
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain a declaration that the Hale-deed passed by her on the 9th March 1903 to her deceased husband's brother was not valid, and to recover possession of the property described in the plaint with mesne profits for the year 1911-12 with future mesne profits and costs. The greater part of the evidence turned upon the question whether the plaintiff was a minor when she signed the sale deed. It cannot be disputed that she signed the sale-deed and admitted execution before the Sub-Registrar, and that it appears from the document that Rs. 2,400 was paid for the land. We have considered very carefully the evidence which was dealt with by the learned Subordinate Judge, and also the arguments adduced by Mr. Rao to show that the finding of the learned Judge was wrong, but there are many circumstances in the case which all point to the fact that the plaintiff was a minor in 1903.2. The question arises whether she in now estopped because according ...
Mallappa Adoptive Father Bharmappa Natural Father Mallappa Kench-radi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom297
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff; sued for possession of the house and. a one-fifth share of the lands as described in para. 1 of the plaint with mesne profits.2. The first plaintiff is the adopted son of the second plaintiff who is the widow of one Bharmappa. Bharmappa admittedly died in union with Ms brothers, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and the husband of defendant No. 4, leaving a minor son Mahadevappa. Thereafter there was a partition between Mahadevappa and Ms uncles. He died unmarried in 1907 leaving his mother the second plaintiff as his heir. In 1908 she demanded her share which the defendants refused, since when they have been in possession against her. In 1909 she adopted the 1st plaintiff.3. The 2nd and 3rd defendants in their written statement contended inter alia that the adoption was invalid, and this is the, only question which has been argued before us in second appeal. The trial Court decided in plaintiff's favour. The lower appellate Court, however, modified the decre...
Manchharam Bhiku Patil Vs. Dattu Bhiku
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1172
Shah, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case claimed to be the illegitimate sons of one Bhiku and sued to recover by partition their 3/5th share in the moveable and immoveable properties left by Bhiku. The defendant No. 1 is the legitimate son of Bhiku, defendant No. 2 is his grand-son, and defendant No. 3 Bhimabai, who died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, was the widow of Bhiku. Bhiku died in July 1912.2. The defence raised was that the parties belonged to the Lewa Patidar caste, and occupied the same status as the Lewa Patidars in Gujarat and that as such they were either Kshatriyas or Vaishyas, but not Sudras, for the purposes of inheritance. The other defence raised was that the mother was entitled to a separate share at the partition.3. The First Class Subordinate Judge of Dhulia came to the conclusion that the parties were Sudras, and that according to the Hindu law the illegitimate sons were entitled to half the share of the legitimate son. He also came to the conclus...
Ganapati Nagappa Vs. Nagabhatta Shitarambhatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR118; 55Ind.Cas.540
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued in this case to recover Rs. 129-15-0 as three years' rent from the defendants, who he alleged were his Mulgeni tenants. The suit has been dismissed in the trial Court, and an appeal against that order has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. It is admitted that the plaintiff is the landlord of the lands in question, but the defendants dispute the claim on the ground that there is no privity of estate between themselves and the plaintiff because they claim to be sub-tenants from the original Mulgeni tenants. It has been admitted in argument that a Mulgeni tenant who is a permanent tenant can transfer the whole of his interest, and if he does so, then privity of estate arises between the landlord and the transferee. It is perfectly immaterial whether you call the document of transfer a sublease or an assignment or a transfer. We have only to consider what is the actual effect of the document, and if it leaves no interest remaining in...
Basil Lang Vs. Moolji Karsonji and Bhagwan Revashankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1111
Marten, J.1. This is a motion for the appointment of a new trustee in the place of a trustee who is alleged to be of unsound mind. The applicant is his co-trustee.2. The trust is an old charitable trust of a public or religious nature created by the will of a Hindu lady who died in 1873. This suit was begun in the year 1897, and by orders or decrees of the 29th July 1898 and 11th April 1899 the validity of the trust was established: new trustees were appointed: the charity funds were lodged with the Accountant General to the account of this suit, and the income was directed to be paid to the new trustees.3. In course of time, there have been certain changes of trustees, and for that purpose the parties have adopted a course which seems to me unnecessarily expensive, viz., of applying by motion in Court for the appointment of new trustees. It was said that this course was adopted, because liberty to apply was reserved. I do not find in the orders that any such liberty was in fact reserv...
Manchharam Bhiku Patil and Anr. Vs. Dattu and two Ors. who write Bhiku ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom166
Shah, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case claimed to be the illegitimate sons of one Bhiku and sued to recover by partition their 3/5ths share in the moveable and immoveable properties left by Bhiku. The defendant No. 1 is the legitimate soil of Bhika, defendant No. 2 is his grandson, and defendant No. 3 , who died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court, was the widow of Bhiku. Bhiku died in July 1912.2. The defence raised was that the parties belonged to the Lewa Patidar caste, and occupied the same status as the Lewa Patidars in Gujarat and that as such they were either Kshatriyas or Vaishyas, but not Sudras, for the purposes of inheritance. The other defence raised was that the mother was entitled to a separate share at the partition.3. The First Class Subordinate Judge of Dhulia came to the conclusion that the parties were Sudras, and that according to the Hindu law the illegitimate sons were entitled to half the share of the legitimate son. He also came to the conclusion tha...
Emperor Vs. Sorab Merwanji Alpaivalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1103
Shah, J.1. The petitioner before us was charged before the Chief Presidency Magistrate with the breach of two bye-laws under the Bombay Tramways Act (Bombay Act 1 of 1874). It was alleged against him that he did not leave a tram car when asked to do so, even though the interior of the car contained the full number of passengers, and, secondly, that he travelled on the rear platform of the tram car contrary to the provisions of bye-law No. 6.2. The trial Magistrate has found the accused guilty of both the charges, and sentenced him to pay fines in respect of those charges.3. The facts are not in dispute. On the 4th March last the petitioner was found standing on the rear platform of a tram car near Bori Bunder when, it may be taken for the purposes of the present petition, the tram car was full. He was asked to leave the car. but he refused to do so, and hence the prosecution. The bye-laws in question have been framed under Section 24 of the Bombay Tramways Act. The Bombay Electric Supp...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Mahomed Yusuf Ismail, Kt.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1130
Pratt, J.1. This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement to lease. The facts are not in dispute. In December 1914 the Presidency Post Master was looking for premises for a new Post Office and entered into negotiations with the 1st defendant, who was constructing a building called the Sutar Chawl. The Presidency Post Master gave the defendant particulars as to the nature and extent of the accommodation required and the defendant made the following offer in letter dated the 1st February 1915.WITH reference to the Post Office Superintendent's interview with me, I have arranged with Messrs. Mistry and Bhedwar, Architects, to have an accommodation for a Post Office at Sutar Chawl measuring about 650 Sq. Yds, and shall Jet it to you on a lease for ten years on the following conditions:-1. The rent for the place would be Rs. 175 per mensem.2. The counters and a shelf would be supplied by me.3. The electric installation to be made by me, but will be maintained thereafter by you.2. T...
Manak Vs. Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1919
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.437
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of 4 acres of land out of Survey No. 676 situated in Thalner, alleging that he owned Survey No. 68 which is adjoining Survey No. 676 that the plot in dispute was separated from Survey No. 676 by a bandh and included in his Survey Number, that he had been in possession of the plot in dispute for about 50 years; that Survey No. 676 was measured about twelve months ago at the request of the defendant by the Revenue Authorities; that they found out that the plot in dispute formed part of Survey No. 676 which belonged to the defendant, and that, accordingly, he was dispossessed by the defendant in July 1915. He claimed that he had acquired title to the plot in dispute by adverse possession, and prayed, therefore, that possession might be restored to him.2. It has been found in both Courts that the plaintiff had been in possession adversely of the plot in dispute for more than twelve years. But it has been contended that the or...
Rachangauda Irangauda Patil Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1155
The plaintiff, a Vatandar Patil, was, under an order of Government, dismissed from his office, and his life-interest in the Patilki Vatan was forfeited. He sued the Secretary of State for a declaration that the order of Government was illegal and did not legally effect forfeiture within the meaning of Section 61 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, and for possession of the lands. The lower Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by Section 4(a) (1) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876. The plaintiff appealed contending that Section 4(a) (1) was ultra vires of the Government of India:--Held:That Section 4(a)(1) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act was not ultra vires of the Government of India, inasmuch as a claim like the plaintiff's could not have been brought in the ordinary civil Courts against the East India Company by virtue of the preamble to Act XI of 1852.Secretary of State for India v. Moment I.L.R(1912) 15 Bom. L.R. 27, applied.Macleod, C.J...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »