Mumbai Court January 1920 Judgments
Vithaldas Kahandas Soni Vs. Jamietram Maneklal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR698; 58Ind.Cas.279
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case there were four houses in one courtyard, and of these two belonged to the 1st defendant in the suit, and one to the plaintiff'. The 4th' house was sold by the 2nd defendant in the suit to the 1st defendant, and thereupon the plaintiff filed this suit to obtain a deed of conveyance of the suit house from the 2nd defendant by right of pre-emption. The suit was dismissed in the first Court on the ground that the plaintiff had not established that he had proved that he had performed the necessary ceremonies without undue delay. In first appeal the decree was reversed. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled to get half the property from the 1st defendant. When the case was argued before us on second appeal, we were prepared to accept the decision of the first appellate Court, following the decision in Amir Hasan v. Rahim Bakhsh I. L. R. (1897) All. 466. But before the judgment was signed, we were referred to the case of Gokaldas v. Pa...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Shankar Vs. Krishnaji Balkrishna Bhate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR953; 58Ind.Cas.377
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. A decree was passed on the 23rd August 1910' in a mortgage suit filed by the plaintiff whereby it was directed that 'the defendants should pay to the plaintiff Rs. 2,754-9-2 as claimed, costs of the suit, and interest on the principal sum of Rs. 2,4000 from the date of the suit up to this day at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum whatever the sum might come to.' The same was directed to be paid in the following manner:- Defendants should pay Rs. 300 each year to the plaintiff. Plaintiff should bring the same to account in the following way...In this way the defendants should pay the whole sum in instalments by paying Rs. 300 per year to the plaintiff as above until payment of the sum in full. The property in suit should remain in the possession of the defendants. Until payment of the whole mortgage amount the whole of the sum should be a charge on the mortgaged property. In default of the payment of any two instalments, the plaintiff should recover the whole ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Dhonddev Vs. Yeshwant Raghunath Gaitonde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR965; 58Ind.Cas.384
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit for accounts and redemption under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The lower appellate Court passed an order that the plaintiffs should redeem 7/12ths of the entire property as described in Exhibits 79 and 77 free of all encumbrances. The defendants mortgagees have appealed with regard to certain property contained in the mortgage deed of 1840 passed by the plaintiffs' ancestors. That mortgage was for a period of twenty years, and it was provided that if the money was not paid off at the end of twenty years half the property should be taken by the mortgagor and half by the mortgagee. The mortgage money was not paid off at the end of twenty years, and the mortgagee remained in possession until 1864, when a document was passed by the mortgagor, which is Exhibit 76. That refers to the agreement in the mortgage of 1840, and effects a transfer of half the property to the mortgagee, and brings back into the ownership of the mo...
Tag this Judgment!Saydanmia Rahimanmiya Vs. Hasanmiya Manwarmiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR959; 58Ind.Cas.331
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit praying that it might be declared that plaintiffs 1 and 2 had a one anna four pies share in the Jahagir vallage of Kanoshi, and that it might be declared that they were entitled to receive Rs. 65, or any greater or less amount which might be settled according to Tharavband, from the village officers by a separate receipt, and for an injunction and for other relief.2. Before the Subordinate Judge a preliminary issue was framed: is a certificate under the Pensions Act necessary? The learned Judge held that it was necessary, and as the certificate was not produced the plaintiff's suit was dismissed on the 29th November 1913. In appeal the decree was set aside, and the suit was remanded to the trial Court for a framing and trial on evidence of the issue whether the grant to the parties' ancestors was of the soil or of the land revenue. The finding on that issue was that the grant in suit was of the soil, and not of the land revenu...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Govind Joshi Vs. Parashram Janardan Gokhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR970; 58Ind.Cas.391
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the Court passed an order that the sale with regard to the mortgaged property should proceed in respect of eight annas share of defendant No. 1. That was the share of Govind, the father of the present plaintiffs. Apparently no one knew of the existence of the plaintiffs at that time. They were not made parties to the proceedings. Under that order the property was put up for sale by auction. Ah nobody bid over Rs. 1,000, the present defendant bought the eight annas share for Rs. 1005. The defendant then filed a suit for partition against the holder of the other eight annas share and got a decree in 1911. The plaintiffs who are the sons of Govind then came forward and said that they were not parties to the decree and Darkhast, and that the Court sale only affected their father's share which was two annas, and that, therefore, their share of annas six remained unaffected.2. We have to consider then what was sold by the Court under the order made on...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhar Das Vs. Raja Sri Krishna Datt Dube
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1348
Ameer Ali, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Benares of the 8th August, 1910, to enforce a mortgage-bond for Rs. 50,000 executed by one Raja Harihar Dut Cube in favour of Bisambhar Das, the plaintiff's father, since deceased. By this bond, which bears date the 9th October, 1889, Harihar Dutt purported to hypothecate a half share of a large property commonly known as the Jaunpur Eatate in the Jaunpur District then in his possession. Harihar Dutt died in 1892 and on his decease the property carne into the possession of his younger brother Eaja Shankar Dutt Dube. Shankar Dut died three years later. The minor defendant Kishen Dutt was adopted after Raja Shankar Dut's death by his widow under his authority.2. The Court of Wards have assumed charge of the estate during Kishen Dutt's minority.3. The Jaunpur Estate owes its origin to one Sheo Lal Dube who lived towards the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the ninete...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Rustomji Framji Lentin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR355; 76Ind.Cas.743
Marten, J.1. This is a petition by two sons of the deceased testator for administration da bonis non with the will annexed of his estate. The testator died on the 10th August 1899 having left a will, dated the 24th March 1887, of which his widow Manekbai was the executrix. She subsequently obtained probate and died herself on the 16th April 1915, leaving also a will. Since then, viz., on the 1st of December 1918, a family arrangement between all living parties or their representatives has been arrived at for dealing with both estates. In accordance with that arrangement the present petitioners have presented the present petition. The parties are all Parsis.2. The Testamentary Registrar has felt some difficulty in the matter because he suggests that the widow Manekbai was the residuary legatee under the testator's will, and that consequently under Sections 196 and 197 of the Indian Succession Act, her representatives would be entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration. He though...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Sikandarkhan Mahomedkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR200; 55Ind.Cas.862
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner has appealed from an order of the Additional Sessions Judge reversing an order of the First Class Magistrate, who refused to give sanction to prosecute the petitioner. A rule was granted on the petitioner's application of the 16th October 1919, and, therefore, it seems it was treated by the learned Judges who granted the rule as an application in revision. The petitioner charged the accused with causing hurt with a dangerous weapon. The accused was acquitted, and the trying Judge expressed the opinion that if the Police applied for sanction to prosecute the petitioner he would have granted it. The Police did not apply. The First Class Magistrate appears to have thought that he was prevented from giving sanction, because the had previously said that he would only give sanction if an application was made by the Police. The fact remains that it is evident from his judgment in the assault case, that he thought that it was a case in which sanction ...
Tag this Judgment!Tayballi Abdullabhai Vohra Vs. the Dohad Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR951; 58Ind.Cas.326
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that the property mentioned in the plaint belonged to him, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant Municipality from removing the plaint verandah. The plaintiff got a deoree in the trial Court which was reversed on appeal, the learned appellate Judge being of opinion that the case was governed by the decision in Dakore Town M v. Anupram (1913) 15 Bom. L.R. 833 We do not think that the decision of that case applies to the facts of this case, nor do we think that however long a private person may have been in possession of a portion of a public street or road, the Municipality have still powers under Section 122 of the Bombay District Municipal Act to direct him to give up possession or to force him to give up possession, of such part of the public street or road. In this case it has been proved as a fact, and it has been accepted as a fact in both Courts, that the verandah has been on the pre...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Raghunath Shirgaonkar Vs. Vishnu Balaji Hindalekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR948; 58Ind.Cas.323
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for possession of the plaint property and that it might be restored to him by removing the defendant's building. The trial Court ordered the plaintiff to get possession on paying Rs. 2,000 to the defendant. The appellate Judge reversed the decree of the lower Court and directed that the defendant should retain possession of the land covered by the building. The tenant has been in possession of the land for a considerable number of years, but it is admitted that he is not a permanent tenant under the documents which exist, nor can he claim to be a permanent tenant under Section 83 of the Land Revenue Code. But the learned appellate Judge considers that because he has been allowed without objection to build on a portion of the land, therefore what were agricultural leases for a year had become building leases. I am afraid I cannot follow that argument. The ordinary rule is that a tenant must give up vacant possession at the end of his term. ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »