Mumbai Court October 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.
Shivubai Rajaram Shete Vs. Shiddheswar Martand Hegde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom152; (1921)23BOMLR405; 61Ind.Cas.590
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit for redemption and possession of the plaint property alleging that the mortgage deed was passed by one Anna Dhondiba deceased to the grandfather of the 1st defendant on the 10th January 1854. The period for the payment of the mortgage was two years, and the suit was filed on the 6th of January 1916, four days before the right to redeem was barred by the law of limitation. The heirs of Anna, the mortgagor, appear in the pedigree at p. G, and for the purposes of this second appeal it must be taken as proved that Limba and Sugandha, daughters of Renuka, are two of the heirs of Anna, and were, therefore, interested in the equity of redemption. They were not parties to the suit, and accordingly an issue was raised whether the plaintiffs were entitled to maintain the suit without making Limba and Sugandha parties. That issue was found in the negative. The plaintiffs then presented an application under Order I, Rule 10, asking the Cou...
Vishnu Bhikaji Adhikari Vs. Babla Lakha Jathar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom38; (1921)23BOMLR411; 61Ind.Cas.594
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiffs are Khots of a village in the Ratnagiri District. They sued to recover possession of certain land which was in the possession of the defendant No. 1, who is the appellant in Appeal No. 55 of 1918. The plaintiffs' case was that one Babu Daji was the occupancy tenant of the land, and that he had relinquished the same in the plaintiffs' favour in 1913. They claimed, therefore, to be entitled to the land in suit. The defendant No. 1, Lakha, alleged that he was the occupancy tenant as heir of one Sada Narshet, who died in the year 1898, and that as he had been in possession for over twelve years any right of Babu Daji had been extinguished.2. The trial Court held that Babu Daji, and not defendant No. 1. was the rightful occupancy tenant as heir of Sada Narshet, It also held the Rajinama to the plaintiff's proved, and accordingly passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs for possession and mesne profits.3. In appeal by the defendant No. 1 to the District Court,...
Sitaram Sadashiv Sapre Vs. Tukaram Daji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom78; (1921)23BOMLR395; 61Ind.Cas.577
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. These are three appeals in suit filed by the plaintiff Inamdar to recover possession of the plaint land from the defendant, or in the alternative for a decree for enhancing the rent. The important issues were (1) does plaintiff prove that he is the owner of both Inami and Mirasi rights over land in suit (2) is defendant an annual tenant; and (5) is plaintiff entitled to enhanced rent and at what rate. The trial Court found that the plaintiff was merely an Inamdar of the land in suit; that the defendant was not an annual tenant, but a Mirasdar not liable to eviction so long as he paid the dues; and that the plaintiff was entitled to enhanced rent at the rate of Rs. 12 annually in respect of plaint land. The question whether the plaintiffs were Inamdara of the soil or merely grantees of the royal share of the revenue does not seem to have been discussed, and it Beems to have been taken for granted that they were Inamdars of the Foil. Otherwise if they had been...
theresa Vs. Francis J. Misquita
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom156; (1921)23BOMLR399; 61Ind.Cas.587
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for probate of the alleged will of one Pedru Pascol Misquita who died on the 6th of August 1910 leaving a widow and an adopted son Francis. The will left the property, apart from legacies, to Francis with a direction to maintain the widow, and also a direction that if she left off living with Francis she should get Rs. 200. It is admitted that the landed property belonging to the deceased was transferred to Francis. The widow continued to live with him for some years, while he managed the property of the deceased. Then disputes arose amongst the family, and evidently suggestions were made that the will of Pascol should be disputed. As the learned Judge points out, Natal the-sister of the deceased and his nieces thought that they were entitled to a share of the property; one of them had even purported to sell her alleged share of the inheritance to a third party who had, on the strength of the sale, brought a suit against Francis. The r...
Jethabhai Gokuldas Patel Vs. Parshottam Havsa Kumbhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom261; (1921)23BOMLR393; 61Ind.Cas.400
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The applicants applied for probate of a will purporting to be the last will of two persons Lallu and his wife Shiv, They died of plague, Shiv on the 10th of November 1917 and Lallu on the 13th of November. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the will so propounded was a genuine document. Although there are circumstances which might lead us to look upon the document with some amount of suspicion, yet the learned Judge who saw the witnesses and heard their evidence came to the conclusion that the will was a genuine document. There is no reason why we should disturb the finding of the trial Judge on a pure question of fact. The learned Judge refused probate on the ground that it was not possible for two persons to make a conjoint will That admittedly was a wrong view of the law. It has certainly for many years been recognised by the English Courts that a will made by two persons is a perfectly valid will, although no doubt it may lead to various compl...
Jethabhai Gokaldas Patel and ors. Vs. Parshotam Havsa Kumbhar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom987
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The applicants applied for probate of a will purporting to be the last will of two persons Lallu and his wife Shiv. They died of plague, Shiv on, the 10th of November 1917 and Lallu on the 13th of November. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the will so propounded was a genuine document. Although there are circumstances which might lead us to look upon the document with some amount of suspicion, yet the learned Judge who saw the witnesses and heard their evidence came to the conclusion that the will was a genuine document. There is no reason why we should disturb the finding of the trial Judge on a pure question of fact. The learned Judge refused probate on the ground that it was not possible for two persons to make a conjoint will. That admittedly was a wrong view of the law. It has certainly for many years been recognised by the English Courts that a will made by two persons is a perfectly valid will, although no doubt it may lead to various com...
Framroz Dosabhai Vs. Dalsukhbhai Fulchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom180; (1921)23BOMLR383; 61Ind.Cas.567
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by the defendants under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code asking the Court to exercise its discretionary powers with reference to an order made by the learned Second Judge upon an application made to him to review his decision in a proceeding under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act. It was held in Ramkriahna v. Haji Dawood : (1907)9BOMLR208 that an application under Chapter VII of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act would not come within the operation of Section 38 of the Act, which provides in the case of suits, for applications which could be made by either party within eight days from the date of the decree or order in the suit for a new trial. It was held that a proceeding under Chapter VII was not a suit. The result is that Chapter VII stands by itself prescribing a summary method of procedure to enable owners of immoveable property to recover possession from their tenants. Section 49 prescribes that r...
Vishnu Narhar Sapre Vs. Shriram Raghunath Karkare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom455; (1921)23BOMLR391; 61Ind.Cas.398
Macleod, C. J,1. The plaintiff sued to get a half share of the plaint property by a fair and equitable partition. A decree was passed in his favour by the trial Court, although before judgment was delivered it had been discovered that the plaintiff who derived title from Waman, the 5th defendant, grandson of Gopal in the pedigree at page 11, was a minor at the time he purported to transfer his share to the plaintiff. The 1st defendant, the main contesting party, derived title from Visaji, the brother of Gopal. It was the plaintiff's contention that Visaji and Gopal were brothers. The 5th defendant in his written statement, said that he had no objection to the plaintiff's suit, and also consented to his being made a co-plaintiff with him if it was necessary. When it was discovered that the plaintiff, owing to Waman's minority when he passed the sale-deed, had no title, Waman having attained majority excuted another sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Judge considered that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›