Mumbai Court January 1920 Judgments
Dattatraya Durgappa, Ganeshbhat Lingbhat and Anant Krishnappa Bilgi Vs ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1001; 58Ind.Cas.992
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff obtained decree in Suit No. of 191.0 against two of his debtors. In execution of that decree the plaintiff attached certain iminovuable property belonging to the said judgment-debtors. The property was put up for sale by the Collector on the 18th of January 1915. The whole of the said proceeds wore received on the 3rd of February 1915 and were forwarded to the Court, which had sent the decree for evocation to the Collector, on the 4th of March 1915. Thirteen creditors of the judgment-debtors applied for rateable distribution of the assets received in execution, The plaintiff had to hie this suit, because he objected to five of them, the present defendants Nos. 1 to 5, sharing in the rateable distribution and lie had to make the other seven parties, now defendants (i to 12, as they were the other execution creditors. Although as regards defendant No. 1 it was held that the restoration of the application was correct, apparently he was not allowed...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Bhau Indap Vs. Krishnaji Ganoji Indap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR997; 58Ind.Cas.335
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain specific performance of an agreement to sell the plaint property passed between him and one Bhau Indap dated the 7th July 1916. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 20 to Bhau, the contract clearly being a contract for sale to the plaintiff of Bhau's interest, which was three pies in the joint family property. Before the sale could be completed Bhau died, and the suit is brought against hie sons for specific performance. The 3rd defendant paid Rs. 20 into Court, the sum which had been paid to his father, and the trial Court directed that the plaintiff should receive that amount, and his claim for specific performance was refused. In the lower appellate Court this decree was reversed, and the plaintiff's suit was decreed. The respondent relies on Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, Clause (c), 2nd Illustration to that clause. It is difficult at first sight to see how that Illustration fits in with Clause (c). I think the argument is this...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Bhau Indap and ors. Vs. Krishnaji Janoji Indap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom967
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain specific performance of an agreement to sell the plaint property passedbetween him and one Bhau Indap, dated the 7th. July 1916. The plaintiff had paid Rs. 20 to Bhau, the contract clearly being a contract for sale to the plaintiff.' of Bhau's interest, which was three pies in the joint family property. Before the sale could be completed, Bhau died and the suit is brought against his sons for specific performance. The 3rd defendant paid Rs. 20 into Court, the sum which had been paid to his, father, and the trial Court directed that the plaintiff should receive that amount, and his claim for specific; performance was refused. In the lower appellate Court this decree was reversed, and the plaintiffs suit was decreed. The respondent relies on Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, Clause (c), 2nd Illustration to that clause. It is difficult at first sight to see how that Illustration fits in with Clause (c). I think the argument is this,...
Tag this Judgment!Namdev Satvashet Shimpi Vs. Dhondu Sadashiv Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR979; 58Ind.Cas.406
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint lands and house, together with the crops standing on the lands, and Rs. 120 for damages for the loss of rent of tins lands, and Rs. 18 for damages for loss of the house-rent for three . years before suit, and future profits. He based his suit on rent-notes. The defendant contended that he and his brother unwillingly passed the sale-deed of the plaint property to the plaintiff's father; that the property was worth Rs. 2,400 or 2,5;00; and the sale-deed was got instead of a mortgage deed so that the debt might be soon satisfied; that they passed the deed as persons in need, and because the plaintiff's father represented to them that he would not claim ownership over the property; that the plaintiff's father had given them an agreement in writing to reconvey the property to them on satisfaction of the debt so that the defendants might have confidence after passing the sale-deed.2. The plaintiff purchased th...
Tag this Judgment!Anna Laticia De Silva Vs. Govind Balvant Parashare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR987; 58Ind.Cas.411
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit against the defendant who had been appointed a Receiver in an insolvency application No. 13 of 1915 in the Thana District Court to get it declared that the property in suit belonged to her. The suit was decreed in the trial Court, but was dismissed on appeal on the ground that notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code has not been given. Instead of giving notice, and then filing a fresh suit if her demand was not complied with, the plaintiff filed a second appeal, and the question now before us is whether a Receiver under the Provincial Insolvency Act is a public officer within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-section (17), of the Civil Procedure Code. The defendant is not an Official Receiver under Section 19 of the Act, and so an officer of the Court whose duty it is to take action on every adjudication. He is merely a person specially authorised in this particular insolvency to act as Receiver. Section 20 of the ' Pr...
Tag this Judgment!Anna Laticia Desilva Vs. Govind Balvant Pakashare Reciver Under the Pr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom895
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit against the defendant who had been appointed-a. receiver in an insolvency application No. 13 of 1015 in the Than a District Court to get it declared that the property in suit belonged to her. The suit was decreed in the trial Court, but was dismissed on appeal on the ground that notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code had not been given. Instead of giving notice, and then filing a fresh suit if her demand 'was not complied with, the plaintiff filed a second appeal, and the question now before us is whether a receiver under the Provincial Insolvency Act is a public officer , within the meaning of Section 2, Sub-section (17), of the the Civil Procedure Code. The defendant is not-an Official Receiver under Section 19 of the Act, and so an officer of the Court whose duty it is to take' action on. every adjudication. He is merely a person specially authorised in this particular insolvency to act as receiver. Section 20 of th...
Tag this Judgment!Namdeo Satvashet Shimpi Vs. Dhondu Walad Sadashiv Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom961
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint lands and house, together with the crops standing on the lands, and Rs. 120 for damages for the loss of rent of the lands, and Rs. 18 for damages for loss of the house-rent for three years before suit., and future profits. He based his suit on rent-notes. The defendant contended that be and his brother unwillingly passed the sale deed of the plaint property to the plaintiff's father; that the property was worth Rs. 2,400 'or 2,500 and the sale deed was got instead of a mortgage deed so that the debt might be' soon satisfied; that they passed the deed as persons in need, and because the plaintiff's father represented to them, that lie would not claim ownership over the property, that the plaintiff's father had given them an agreement in writing the reconvey the property-to them, on satisfaction of. the debt so that the defendants might have confidence after passing the sale deed.2. The plaintiff purchased the ...
Tag this Judgment!Girijabai Shambhudixit Athavale Vs. Sadashiv Vishvanath Joolekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR974; 58Ind.Cas.394
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint property as the widow of one Shambhudixit who was adopted in 1878 by a family of the name of Athavale. The defendants are the grandsons of Shambhu by their father Viahwanath who was born in 1877 before the adoption. Therefore according to Hindu law Vishwanath, the son of Shambhu after Shambhu's adoption into the Athavale family, remained in his father's old Jogleker family. Shambhu died in 1904.2. The defendants oppose the paintiff's claim mainly on two grounds, one of limitation, the other of estoppel. It was contended that Article 119 applied, and that although the suit was one to recover possession of the property, the plaintiff, before she could succeed, had to obtain a declaration that her husband's adoption was valid. Therefore she was bound to bring the suit within six years after the rights of Sambhu, the adopted son as such, had been interfered with. The learned Judge found that such interferenc...
Tag this Judgment!Atmaram Bhaskar Damle Vs. Parashram Ballal Kelkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR982; 58Ind.Cas.419
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff .sued to recover on account of profits of the plaint lands Rs. 150 for the three years 1915, 1916 and 1917 as per decree in Suit No. 35 of 1916.2. There was a partition suit in which partition was asked for and possession with a claim not only for past mesne profits, but also for future mesne profits. The decree which granted partition made no reference to future profits although prior profits were awarded. The trial Court allowed the plaintiff's claim, saying that 'because the Court did not notice it, it does not follow that plaintiff must lose future profit;;'. This decree was reversed by the District Judge on the ground that as future profits were expressly asked for and had not been expressly granted by the decree, the case came within Explanation V to Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore the claim should, for the purposes of that section, be deemed to have been refused. At first- sight that would seem to be the obvious meaning...
Tag this Judgment!Nilkanth Bhimaji Sinde Vs. Hanmant Eknath Sinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR992; 58Ind.Cas.415
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The pedigree of the parties in this suit is Met out at page 7. The property in suit originally belonged to two brothers, Bhimaji and Jiwaji who were separate, although this particular property had not been divided by metes and bounds.2. It is admitted that Jiwaji is branch has an eight annas share in the suit property. Nilkanth, one of the sons of Bhimaji, claims to be entitled to the other half against his brothers, alleging that at a partition between the sons of Bhimaji the half share in the plaint lands was given to his share. It appears that the family had property not only in British India, but also in Kolhapur. An arbitrator was appointed for partition of the family property. He issued an award partitioning the property in Kolhapur, but there is no record as to whether a partition was made of the property in British India. In 1900 the four brothers signed receipts in which they acknowledged having accepted certain portions detailed in the respective r...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »