Mumbai Court September 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.
Ekoba Govindshet Vani Vs. Dayaram Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR82
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit property as owner with mesne profits at Rs. 60 a year and costs of the suit, alleging that the suit property originally belonged to one Vithoba valad Maharoo his uncle. Vithu died in 1882 leaving a widow Dagoobai. In 1903 she gifted the plaint property to the defendant. The widow died in 1906, and thereafter the plaintiff executed a rent-note in favour of the defendant. The defendant afterwards brought a suit for possession under a rent-note and a decree was passed. But it is admitted for the purposes of this suit that the defendant did not get possession under his decree, and the property is now in the possession of the plaintiff's son. Both Courts have held that in the circumstances of the case the plaintiff is estopped from bringing this suit. There can be no doubt, that as long as (the tenancy continued under the rent-note passed by the plaintiff o the defendant, the plaintiff was debarred from disputi...
Revansiddappa Panchappa Umbarje Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR88
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The facts in this came are not disputed. The plaintiff was assessed for income-tax in the year ending 31st March 1913 in the amount of' .Rs. 833-5-4. The plaintiff paid that amount on the 18th June 1012. It is admitted that the income of the plaintiff on which the assessment was levied was less than the actual income on which assessment ought to have been levied. When that had been ascertained, a supplementary bill was sent to the plaintiff for the amount of Rs. 488-10-8 on the 7th November 1912, and a direction was made that the plaintiff should pay the amount of the bill by the 4th of January 1913. The plaintiff paid in the amount on the 8th January 1913 under protest. Later on the plaintiff received a notice demanding payment of Rs. 61-1-4 as fine on account of the default in the payment of the income-tax money by the time fixed. The plaintiff paid the fine. He then filed this suit to recover from the Secretary of State for India the said amounts of Rs. 4...
Amarappa Sanabasappa Gumalpur Vs. Rachava Sugappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR86
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case relies upon a deed of gift, He was unable to prove in the trial Court that it was attested according to law. The deed would require to be attested by two witnesses under Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. In Shamu Patter v. Abdul Kadir : (1912)14BOMLR1034 , it was held by their Lordships of the Privy Council that the word 'attested' in Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act meant the witnessing of the actual execution of the document by the person purporting to execute it. It is quite clear that that decision also covers Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, so the appeal must be dismissed, unless we agree to allow it to stand over as suggested by the appellant's pleader on the chance of Act XXVI of 1917 being extended to this Presidency. We do not think the mere chance that that Act may be extended is any ground for allowing the appeal to stand over. It is true that we are told that a representation has been m...
Desaiappa Khalilappa Desai Vs. Dundappa Malkappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR76
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a decree was passed on the 18th February 1899 for Rs. 376 and costs in favour of the plaintiff. The first Darkhast presented to the Court was dismissed for non-production of a succession certificate on the 20th March 1907. Thereafter a Darkhast was filed on the 31st March 1910 which was disposed of on the 8th September 1910, and then another Darkhast was presented on the 12th September 1910. The defendant then appeared and contended that the Darkhast of the 31st March 1910 was barred. Apparently the Court decided that the Darkhast of the 12th September 1910 was in time, and directed that the money due should be paid by instalments, the first instalment to be paid on the 15th April 1912. On the 26th March 1913 Rs. 220 were paid to plaintiff. The present Darkhast was filed on the 19th November 1915 to recover the balance due under the decree of Rs. 270-3-6.2. The first Court directed execution to proceed. The lower appellate Court reversed the ord...
Madhav Krishna Deshpande Vs. Shiddaya Danappaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR79
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On the 3rd September 1901 Balawa the widow of one Danapaya deceased sold the plaint property to the 1st and 2nd defendants with the consent of her two daughters, the nearest and only reversioners at the time. In 1909 Balawa adopted the present plaintiff, and the plaintiff has now brought this suit for a declaration that the sale-deed of 1901 was not binding on him and that he was entitled to recover possession of the plaint lands from defendants 1 and 2. It must be noted that Balawa is still, alive. The plaintiff is a minor suing by his maternal uncle and it looks very much like an attempt on the part of the widow to set aside an alienation made by her in 1901, because as a matter, of fact the plaintiff would know nothing about what was being done in his name.2. The trial Court directed that on the plaintiff paying to the defendants within three months from the date of the order the sum of Rs. 800, the sum spent for improvements by the defendants the defenda...
Desaippa BIn Khalilappa Desai Vs. Dundappa BIn Malkappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom227
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. In this case a decree was passed on the 18th. February 1899 for Ha. 376 and cost's in favour of the plaintiff. The first Darkhast presented to the Court was dismissed for non-production of a succession certificate on the 20th March 1907. Thereafter a Darkhast was filed on the 81st March 1910 which was disposed of on the 8th September 1910, and then. another Darkhast was presented on the 12th September, 1910. The defendant then appeared and contended that the Darkhast of the 81st March 1910 was barred. Apparently the Court decided that the Darkhast of the-12th September 1910 was in time, and directed that the money due should be paid by instalments, the first instalment to be paid on the 15th April 1912. On the 26th March 1913, Rs. 220 were paid to plaintiff. The present Darkhast was tiled on the 19th November 1915 to recover the balance due under the decree of Rs. 270-3-6.2. The first Court directed execution to proceed. The lower appellate Court reversed the ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›