Mumbai Court January 1920 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.
Kalu Devba Vs. Rupchand Kisondas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom848
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This suit was 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' for the 'plai...
Bhaiji Ishvardas Shah Vs. the Talukdari Settlement Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR906; 58Ind.Cas.88
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the defendant, the Talukdari Settlement Officer of the Gujarat Prant, had no right to take from him possession of the field described in the plaint, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession or causing it to be taken from him or from obstructing the plaintiff in any way. The property mentioned in the plaint is part of the talukdari estate which had been settled in Jivai on a cadet branch of the talukdari family. One Vakha in 1892 was the elder member of that cadet branch. He mortgaged the plaint property to the plaintiff, and his son Vaza joined in the mortgage. Vakha died in 1901. In 1905 Vaza executed a sale-deed to the plaintiff of the property mortgaged in 1892. In 1908, the Talukdari Settlement Officer issued a notice directing him to give up possession. The learned District Judge has confirmed the decree of the lower Court which dismissed the suit.2. In appeal the first poi...
Mir Akbaralli Mir Inayatalli Vs. Abdul Ajiz Mirsaheb Jahagirdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR916; 58Ind.Cas.96
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs brought this suit to establish their sole right to manage the devasthan of Usthal, alleging hereditary right and ancient and immemorial custom, against defendants 1 and 4, as representing a Board of Management elected, by various co-sharers under the Collector's order of 23rd March 1908. This question appears to have been decided against the plaintiffs by a decree of the High Court in Suit No. ' 96 of 1893 which was passed on the 7th July 1896. Apparently after the decree was passed the plaintiffs remained in possession, and nothing was actually done by the other side to get into possession until the Collector's order of the 1st August 1908.2. It is suggested in the first place that the plaintiffs can tack on the period of adverse possession before the decree in Suit No. 96 of 1893 to the period after the decree, so that they acquired an absolute title after twelve years from the date of the original possession. That is an argument which we ca...
Mir Akbarali Walad Mir Inayatalli and ors. Vs. Abdul Ajij Walad Mirasa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom934
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs brought this suit to establish their sole right to manage the Devasthan of Usthal, alleging hereditary right and ancient and immemorial custom, against defendants Nos. 1 and 4 as representing a board of management elected by various co-sharers under the Collectors order of 23rd March 1908. This question appears to have been decided against the plaintiffs by a decree of the High Court in Suit No. 96 of 1893 which was passed on the 7th July 1896. Apparently after the decree was passed the plaintiffs remained in possession, and nothing was actually done by the other side to get into possession, until the Collector's order of the 1st August 1908.2. It is suggested in the first place that the plaintiff can tack on the period of adverse possession before,the decree in, Suit No. 96 of 1893 to the period after the decree, so that they acquired an absolute title after-twelve years from the date of the original possession. That is an argument which we cannot...
Bhaiji Ishwardas Shah Vs. the Talukpaiu Settlement Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1920
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom832
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the defendant, the Talukdari Settlement Officer of the Gujarat Prant, had no right to take from him possession of the field described in the plaint, and. for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking possession or causing it to be taken from him or from, obstructing the plaintiff in any way. The property mentioned id the plaint is part of the Talukdari estate which had been nettled in Jivai on a cadet branch of the Talukdari family. One Vakha in 1892 was the elder member of that cadet branch. He mortgaged the plaint property to the plaintiff, and his son Vaza, joined in the mortgage Vakha died in 1901. In 1905, Vaza executed, a sale-deed to the plaintiff of the property mortgaged in 1812. In 1908, the Talukdari Settlement Officer issued a notice directing him to give-up possession. The learned District Judge has confirmed the decree of the lower Court which dismissed the suit.2. In appeal, the first poi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›