Mumbai Court January 1920 Judgments
Shivajirao Narayanrao Thorat Vs. Hari Narayan Tagare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR943; 58Ind.Cas.319
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover in this suit the amounts due on three mortgage bonds passed by the defendant's Tip. defendant was a minor and a ward of the Collector Court of; wards Act (Bom. Act I of 1905). Three been passed (1) in 1886 for Rs. 9,50O on a simple mortgage for ten years; (2) a hond in 1887 for Rs. 500; and (3)a bond in 1891 for Rs. 3,200, which purported to be a mortgage with possession for two years. It is admitted that the mortgagee has not got possession. It is also clear that the bond of 1887-for Rs. 600 is barred. -The plaintiff had obtained, decrees on the other two bonds in-O 886 and 1891. The learned Subordinate Judge-considered that Article 147 applies, but in doing so he Beams-to have overlooked or misunderstood the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Vdsvdeva Mudaliar v. Srinivasa Pillai I.L.R (1907) Mad. 423 P.C. It cannot be disputed that it is not Article 147 but Article 132 which applies. However the Subordinate Judge ha...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Raghunath Shirgaonkar Vs. Vishnu Babaji Hindalekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom950
Norman Macleod, 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 8.3 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 roust give up vacant possession at the end of his ter...
Tag this Judgment!Mir Isub Mir Inus Maldikar Vs. Isub
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR942; 58Ind.Cas.48
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case Abdulla and Allisaheb were two Sunni Mahomedans who owned certain property as heirs of their father in equal shares. Abdulla died in 1888 leaving two widows, Jamalbi and Latifa, and his brother Allisaheb. Under Mahomedan law the widows would take two annas out of Abdulla's eight annas. Allisaheb would take six annas. Allisaheb died in 1897 leaving a widow Amina. She would succeed law to the fourteen annas of her husband. It has been argued that she would only be entitled to one-fourth f her husband's estate and in the absence of sharers, residuaries and distant kindred the three-fourtha would escheat to the Crown. That is not Mahomedan law as we understand it. I may refer to Mulla's Mahomedan Law, 5th Ed;, where the author deals in a simple manner with the doctrine of 'Return'. In the illustration of a Mahomedan dying leaving a widow as his sole heir, he says, 'the widow will take one-fourth as sharer, and the remaining three-fourths by 'Return'...
Tag this Judgment!Vaikunt Shridhar Bhatta Vs. Manjunath Madhav Bhandari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR640; 58Ind.Cas.217
Shah, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are these:-Certain properties including the property in suit formed the subject matter of a partition among four brothers defendants Now. 1 and 2, father of defendant No. 3 and one Venkatraman. At that partition the property in suit was given to their mother during her life-time for her maintenance. One Sheshgiri obtained a decree against defendant No. 2 and in execution of that decree he attached two lands, plaint serial Nos. 1 and 2. Kaveri, the mother of defendant No. 2, objected to the attachment and made an application for having the attachment raised on the ground that plaint serial No. 2 was in her possession; that she was entitled to retain it during her lifetime and that there was a charge thereon for certain sum to be paid by the brothers for her funeral ceremonies after her death. The allegation as to the other land was that it was subject to a charge of her maintenace at a certain monthly rate. This application was g...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Balaji Nagarkar Vs. Kashibai Keshav Dand-naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR633; 58Ind.Cas.213
Crump, J.1. The question for determination in this case is whether the present suit is barred by reason of anything contained in Sections 35 and 36 of the Guardians and Wards Act (Act VIII of 1910).2. On October 1st, 1900, Keshav the deceased husband of the plaintiff was left as the sole surviving male member of his family, and became owner of the family estate. Balaji, father of the defendants, who was Keshav's maternal grand-father, assumed the management, as Keshav was a minor, and on July 7th, 1902, he was appointed guardian of the minor's property under the Guardians and Wards Act by the District Court of Poona. He continued to act as guardian up to the death of Keshav in September 1906. After Keahav's death Balaji continued to manage the estate on behalf of the minor plaintiff and on June 26th, 1907, he was appointed guardian of the property by the District Court. Balaji died in July 1907.3. In this suit the plaintiff prays for an account for the whole period during which Balaji ...
Tag this Judgment!Kallangowda Nangangowda Patil Vs. Bibishaya Shah Mahomed Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR936; 58Ind.Cas.42
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Defendant No. 1's husband and defendant No. 3 were entitled to succeed to their father's property according to Mahomedan law. The defendant No. 3 mortgaged his share, or the property representing his share, to the plaintiff's, and eventually sold the equity of redemption to them. The plaintiffs, therefore, are entitled to the share in the estate to which defendant No. 3 was entitled. They are endeavouring now to get possession of that share by partition. They are being resisted by. the second defendant who is a tenant of the first defendant; The lower Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation, The learned Judge seems to have thought that Article 123 applied with this startling result. Supposing the heirs of a deceased Mahomedan chose to live in community, as is certainly often done in 'Bombay and even more often up country, for several generations, the rights of each of the Sharers to a partition would be barred twelve years aft...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Kolaji Patil Vs. Hanmanta Laxman Kadaskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR939; 58Ind.Cas.45
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was in effect a redemption suit filed by the plaintiffs in 1914 to redeem and recover property mortgaged in 1902. It appears that the plaintiffs filed suit No. 220 of 1905 to redeem the mortgage, but not wishing to proceed with that suit they were allowed to withdraw it with permission to bring a fresh suit provided that such suit was brought within two years send that the costs of defendants . in that suit were first paid. This suit was brought eight years after the withdrawal, and the plaintiffs' suit has therefore been dismissed on the ground that they have not complied with the conditions imposed by the order allowing them to withdraw the first suit. It appears to us that the Court has failed to consider what was the nature of the suit filed in 1905. It is also possible that the considerations which induced the Full Bench to decide the ease of Ramji v. Pandharinath (1918) 21 Bom. L.R. 56 had not been recognised in the previous decisions of the India...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Khanderao Kango Vs. Govind Ramchandba Chitnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR919; 58Ind.Cas.65
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this ease a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on the 12th February 1894. It directed that interest should be recovered at the rate of Rs. 262-8-0 per annum before the 31st of May every year from 1892, and that the principal amount Rs. 7,001 should be recovered in twenty-five years. It further directed that if the judgment-debtors obstructed the judgment-creditor in attaching the cash allowance till his principal was paid or obstructed the judgment-creditor in getting his interest every year till the principal was paid or obstructed him in any other way or if the judgment-creditor did not get the interest every year from the judgment-debtors, the judgment-creditor should recover the whole amount, principal and interest, with interest at 33/4 per cent, by sale of the mortgaged cash allowance. The judgment-debtors made default in payment of annual instalments of interest. Execution was taken out, and it appears that Rs. 171-2-6 had been recovered ...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Deoba Vs. Eupchand Kishandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR933; 58Ind.Cas.39
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit wris originally filed in 1910 by the plaintiffs who sued for redemption of a mortgage dated 10th April 1885. The suit was dismissed in the trial Court' On appeal the case was remanded, and again on appeal from the' order of remand it was held by the High Court 'that' the one plaintiff Shivba had no right to redeem, and the suit would have to be dismissed as his interest in the equity of redemption had been sold. As regards the other plaintiff who represented Devba, the ' other mortgagor, the Court decided that he should be allowed an opportunity of redeeming the outstanding mortgage. The case therefore went back to the Subordinate Judge who directed that the plaintiffs should recover from the defendants possession of the properties in suit with the exception of Survey Nos. 54 and 87 of Bharadi and Survey No. 11 of Sarve free from the mortgage. This decree was upheld on appeal except that it was modified by substituting the word 'plaintiff No. 2' fo...
Tag this Judgment!Amrit Khanderao Kango Vs. Govind Ramchandra Chitnis and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom840
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. In this case a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on the 12th February 1894. It directed that interest should be recovered at the rate of Rs. 262-8-0 per annum before the 31st of May every year from 1892, and that the principal amount Rs. 7,001 should be recovered in twenty-five years. It further directed that if the judgment-debtors obstructed the judgment-creditor in attaching the cash allowance till his principal was paid or obstructed the judgment-creditor in getting his interest every year till the principal was paid or obstructed him in any other way or if the judgment-creditor did not get the interest every year from the judgment-debtors, the judgment-creditor' should recover the whole amount, principal and interest, with interest at 3 3/4 per cent, by sale of the mortgagee cash allowance. The judgment-debtors made default in payment of annual instalments of interest. Execution was taken out, and it appears that Rs. 171-2-6 had been recovered in ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »