Mumbai Court September 1919 Judgments
ibrahim Goolam Husenbux Vs. Nihalchand Waghmul
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR113; 55Ind.Cas.536
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge of Thana disallowing the appellant's contention, that the execution of the decree passed against him in favour of Fojmal Navlaji and others could not proceed by bringing the mortgaged property to sale. Fojinal Navlaji and others were mortgagees of the appellant under a mortgage of the 10th of June 1913. That was a usufructuary mortgage. On the same day the defendant-mortgagor executed a rent-note in favour of the mortgagees for a period of twelve months, and as he did not pay the rent under that rent-note the mortgagees filed a suit, and obtained a decree for Rs. 1,000. Then they assigned that decree to the present respondents who sought to issue execution by sale of the mortgagor's equity of redemption in the mortgaged property.2. It has been contended for the appellant that the respondents cannot be allowed to bring the mortgaged property to sale otherwise than by instituting a suit for sale in enforce...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: C.J.R.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR157
Shah, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order made by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The orders under Section 144 are not proceedings within the meaning of Section 435 of the Code as provided by Sub-section 3 of that section, and are excluded from the revisional powers of this Court. It is clear, however, that it is open to this Court to consider whether the order complained of is outside the scope of the section under which it purports to have been made. If it is within the scope of the section, the Court cannot revise the order on its merits; in other words we are not concerned with the propriety of the order i it is within the scope of Section 144. If it is outside the scope of the section, it is liable to be set aside on the ground that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to make it. On this point it is enough to refer to the observations in In re Pandurang Govind I.L.R(1900) . 25 Bom. 170: 2 Bom. L. R. 84 .2. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Rahimatalli Mahomedalli Mulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR166
Shah, J.1. The appellant before us is one Mulla Rahimatalli Mahomedalli. He was charged before the Second Presidency Magistrate under Sections 153 and 292 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of three writings (Yajidki Id marked A, Sharafalli Mamoojeeka Morcia marked C and Khare Dajjal-Ka Matoom marked (G), Exhibits A and C are said to have been published on or about the 11th and 12th July 1918 respectively and as regards Exhibit G it is said that the offences were committed on or about the 9th of August 1918.2. The trial Magistrate after a prolonged inquiry came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty under Sections 15:3 and 292 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of Exhibit A (Yazidki Id), that he was guilty under Section 153 in respect of Exhibit C (Sharafalli Mamoojika Mercia) and that no offence was established in respect of Exhibit G. The result was that the accused was convicted under Sections 153 and 292 in respect of 'Yazidki Id' and sentenced to pay a tine Rs. 1,000 only...
Tag this Judgment!Parvati Devanna Jagadal Vs. Shrinivas Ramchandra Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR110; 55Ind.Cas.531
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This second appeal includes little else except questions of fact. The defendants claim as transferees from Bhagawa, the widow of Ramappaj alleging that she relinquished absolutely her life-estate in her husband's property in favour of the 1st defendant, her mother-in-law. Admittedly there is no transfer of the widow's interest in writing. An attempt has been made to prove it by oral evidence. But even supposing that this evidence were admissible to prove a transfer, the Court has held as a matter of fact that the relinquishment is not proved. I myself should very much doubt whether it could be held that the widow could entirely relinquish her life-estate in her husband's property merely by making an oral statement before the Mamlatdar, or agreeing to the transfer of the Khata to the transferee's name. Then it has been proved that although Bhagawa gave her age as twenty when she made the statement before the Mamlatdar, as a matter of fact she was a minor at t...
Tag this Judgment!Martand Trimbak Gadre Vs. Daya Apaji Phatak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR106; 55Ind.Cas.527
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the decree was transferred to the Collector for execution. Under Rule 91, (16)(1) at p. 105 of the Manual of Circulars regarding the powers of the Collector, the Collector can grant express permission to the holder of a decree, in execution of which property is sold, to bid for or purchase the property: Provided that the Collector or other officer aforesaid to whom an application for such permission may be made shall not grant such permission, unless the decree-holder inter alia agrees that if the decree-holder or any one on his behalf becomes the purchaser, the purchase money shall be paid to the Collector or other officer executing the decree.2. The Collector, therefore, has no power to allow a decree-holder to set off the decretal amount against the purchase money. The question before us is whether the decree-holder having received from the Collector permission to bid, and having been declared to be the highest bidder, can apply to the Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Martand Trimbak Gadre and anr. Vs. Daya BIn Abaji Phatak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom346
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. In this case the decree was transferred to the Collector for execution. Under Rule 91 (1.6) (1) at page 105 of the Manual of Circulars regarding the powers of the Collector, the Collector can grant express permission to the holder of a decree, in execution of which property is sold, to bid for or purchase the property; Provided that the Collector or other officer aforesaid to whom an application for such permission may be made shall not grant such permission,- unless the decree-holder inter alia agrees that if the decree-holder or any one on his behalf becomes the purchaser, the purchase-money shall be paid to the Collector or other officer executing the decree.2. The Collector, therefore, has no power to allow a decree-holder to set off the decretal amount against the purchase money. The question before us is whether the decree-holder having received from the Collector permission to bid, and having been declared to be the highest bidder, can apply to the Court f...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Narayan Samant Vs. Bhagwandas Atmaramshet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR120; 55Ind.Cas.544
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the sons of the original mortgagee against the sons of the original mortgagor to enforce the mortgage executed on the 1st of June 1891 by the defendants' father Narayan in favour of the plaintiffs' father. Both the lower Courts have allowed the plaintiffs' claim.2. In the appeal before us it has been argued that the mortgage was null and void as it was executed by Narayan not for an antecedent debt but for a debt incurred at the time of the mortgage. The mortgage bond contains the following recital: 'After taking accounts of the past dealings by me with you, I find myself indebted to you for a sum of Rs. 700, and today I have taken Rs. 799 to pay off the debts due to others, so in all I have to pay you Rs. 1,499.' The property mortgaged was the ancestral property of Narayan. The lower appellate Court has found, and it is not disputed before us, that the recital as to the consideration in the deed is true. Thus as regards Rs. 700 the ...
Tag this Judgment!Tribhovandas Narottamdas Vs. Nagindas Vijbhukandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1919
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1137
Heaton, J.1. The plaintiffs agreed to buy and the defendants to sell certain goods and entered into a contract. The important part of the contract ( I will leave out the earlier part with its usual preliminaries ) is:Ghaghrapat (cloth cases or bales 19 'Gin' at Re. 0-10-3, inches 34. The above-mentioned goods which are to arrive are sold (to you). Those purchased by us from Graham & Co. are sold to you. Shipment thereof January or February. And there are to be) two to three months in addition. To be delivered early if arrive early. To he delivered as and when the same may be received. To be delivered on the safe arrival of the steamer. Interest (at) eight annas. 'Sai' (allowance) (at) Rs. 2 per case. Fresh clause:-If the goods to arrive come 'late' the purchaser is to take (delivery of the same). 2. The case has never been separately tried and we have been dealing with it on the pleadings, the correspondence which ensued between the parties and the contract itself, the important part o...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vithal Bhat Vs. Gajanan Narayan Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR296
Hayward, J.1. I concur. I have no doubt that the Benamidar was entitled to sue. The certificate of sale was good title until it set aside in regular proceedings. The general proposition of law has' clearly' been wrongly stated by the lower appellate Court. It would be sufficient to refer to the Privy Council case of Gur Narayan v. Sheo Lal Singh . But it has been argued that the Benamidar had no permission to bid at the sale and that it was therefore a nullity. But no stops were taken to avoid the sale as they might have been in execution on that account, nor was it alleged in theft written statement that there was any fraud. .It was not even alleged in the first appeal Court. It has as a final resource been alleged here, but it has in my opinion not been established. It would appear to me, therefore, no good reason for treating the sale as a nullity, whether or no it was open to the defence to raise the plea of fraud in view of the provisions of Article 166 of the Schedule of the Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vithal Bhat Vs. Gajanan Narayan Deshmukh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1919
Reported in: 56Ind.Cas.349
Shah, J.1. It will be convenient to set forth the facts which have given rise to this second appeal.2. One Narayan and his other brothers mortgaged a two-anna share in the Khoti Takshim to one Vinayak Tilak with all the Khasgi lands and other rights appertaining to the Takshim. The mortgagee filed Suit No. 194 of 1902 on his mortgage and obtained a decree. In pursuance of that decree the property mortgaged was sold by the Court and the present plaintiff purchased it at the Court sale on the 16th June 19C8 for Rs. 1,200. The tale was confirmed in July 1908. The auction purchaser applied to have possession of the property and be recovered possession in December 1903 of the Tekshim. It was stated, however, at the time by him that certain properties to which the sale certificate related were in the actual possession of the defendants and that be had not received possession of those properties. Those properties were not specified; but generally speaking, the main property described in the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »