Mumbai Court November 1920 Judgments
Ganpat Rama Joshi Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom138; (1921)23BOMLR462
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, the Secretary of State for India, in Council, filed this suit to recover possession of the plaint houses with, mesne profits on the ground that they were the property of one Ishwarappa who died some five and twenty years ago leaving a widow. If the properties should be treated in the hands of the widow as the property of her husband, then on the death of the widow the properties would revert to her husband's heirs, and if her husband had no heirs, then no doubt the property Would escheat to the Crown. But it is admitted that ' these houses were built by the widow after the husband's death. And it would only in the event of the Court being able to hold with absolute certainty that these houses represented or were in substitution of a certain part of the husband's estate that they would revert on the widow's death to the husband's heirs.2. The trial Judge held that these houses must be treated as belonging to the husband's estate, since on the e...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Budhaji Mokal Vs. Posha Jama Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom172; (1921)23BOMLR466
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff tiled this 3uit to recover the sum of Rs. 357-8-0 from the defendants or in the alternative to recover the sum by sale of the mortgaged property, or to recover the possession of the property by foreclosure. It appears that this property was mortgaged by the then owners, who are now represented by the defendants, to one Ramchandra Raghunath on the 1st of February 1880 for a sum of Rs. 250 with possession. The mortgagee sold his right to one Tatya Keshav on the 6fch of March 1880. It was provided that the mortgage debt was not to carry interest, and the mortgagee was to enjoy the property mortgaged in lieu of interest. The defendants then passed a document in favour of the present plaintiff's father on the 15th March 1893. That document on the face of it appeared to be a sale-deed transferring the property to the plaintiffs' father in consideration of Rs. 600, In 1898 the plaintiff's father paid off the 1st mortgagee, Tatya Keshav and obtained po...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Vasudevacharya Katti Vs. Amgauda Malagauda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom169; (1921)23BOMLR455
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover from the defendant the sum of Rs. 1,207 which he paid into Court in the following circumstances.2. In Suit No. 347 of 1909 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Athni the defendant obtained a mortgage decree against one Shivgouda Deogouda Patil, which directed the recovery of the mortgage amount by sale of the present plaint land. In Darkhast No. 608 of 1914 filed by the present defendant to execute his decree the property was sold. The present plaintiff then paid into Court, under Order XXI, Rule 89, the decretal amount of Rs 1,207 and Rs. 63 being five per cent, of the purchase money for payment to the auction purchaser, before the sale was confirmed, and got the sale set aside.3. The present defendant-then plaintiff-was the auction purchaser. As such auction purchaser the Rs. 63 was paid to him and as decree-holder the Rs. 1,207 were also paid to him.4. The plaintiff alleged that the property sold belonged to hi...
Tag this Judgment!Navalchand Chhaganlal Vs. Manekchand Melapchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom25; (1921)23BOMLR450
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was filed by the executors of the will of one Bai Moghi to have the will construed by the Court. Bai Moghi died on the 26th February 1911, possessed of property worth about Rs. 30,000, which she had inherited from her father arid therefore, was at her absolute disposal. On the 24th of m February she made a will appointing plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 and the 1st defendant her executors. The beneficiaries of her will were the son and daughter of a predeceased daughter of the testatrix. All the difficulty in construing the will has arisen owing to the desire, of which we have such frequent instances, of the testatrix to limit the devolution of her property after her death in a manner which is not recognised by law. The bulk of her property the testatrix bequeathed to the 2nd defendant, her grandson. But there are limitations of two kinds which the testatrix sought to impose. She did not wish him to enjoy the full ownership of the property until he had a so...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Ramrao Masur Vs. Krishnadas Padmanabh Chandavarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR732; 57Ind.Cas.423
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. These are four companion second appeals. In the original suits certain parties against whom orders had been passed by the Liquidator of the Chandavar Agricultural Co-operative Stores Society filed the suits for a declaration that the orders passed by the Liquidator were null and void. The facts are that this Society was in the process of being wound up, and a Liquidator had been appointed. He made certain orders against these various plaintiffs in the course of the winding up, in order that he might get in the assets of the Society.2. Section 42(2) (e) of Act II of 1912 gives the Liquidator power to give such directions in regard to the collection and distribution of the assets of the Society, as may appear to him to be necessary for winding up the affairs of the Society. Rule (4) under the section provides that 'where an appeal from any order made by a Liquidator under this section is provided for by the rules, it shall he to the Court of the District Judge...
Tag this Judgment!Vithal Ramchandra Gulwadi Vs. Raghavendra Ramrao Baindur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom158; (1921)23BOMLR447
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Bijapur in a suit filed by the plaintiff, a pleader of Bagalkot, against Mr. Raghvendra Rainrao Baindur, an Additional Subordinate Judge of Bagalkot, claiming damages for libel contained in two documents (1) a notice dated the 4th October 1916, and (2) an order dated the 27th November 1916. The defendant pleaded that ho was protected by Act XVIII of 1850, in that the acts complained of were done by him in discharge of his judicial duty. Both the documents complained of were written by the defendant and served on the plaintiff owing to an unfortunate difference of opinion which had arisen between the plaintiff and the defendant in the course of a suit in which the plaintiff was acting as a pleader for one of the parties. The defendant objected to the conduct of the plaintiff acting as such pleader and called upon him to apologise. The plaintiff did not apologise, and in consequence of his refusal th...
Tag this Judgment!Vyasacharya Madhavacharya Ghalsasi Vs. Vishnu Vithal Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR717; 58Ind.Cas.289
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint lands together with Rs. 2-0-6 for past damages and costs, alleging that the plaint properties were of his ancestral Inami and Mirasi rights; that the lands were let to defendant on an annual oral tenancy; that the defendant did not pay rent regularly; and that defendant was called upon to pay enhanced rent, but he refused. The plaintiff prayed that in case actual possession could not be allowed to be given, then in the alternative enhanced rent at Rs. 30 per year should be given.2. The trial Court allowed the claim. In appeal the decree was reversed and enhancement was awarded at the rate of the assessment fixed by the Revision Survey. The learned Judge expressed the opinion that if he was wrong on the question of enhancement, the maximum enhancement should be three times the assessment.3. Now the title of the plaintiff is perfectly clear. It is based on a Sanad granted in 1727 by King Shahu Chatrapati o...
Tag this Judgment!Shivalingappa Satvirappa Vs. Satyava Laxaman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom77; (1921)23BOMLR967
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover by partition half a share in the lands specified in the plaint. Admittedly those lands were originally held by one Naikanna who appears at the head of the pedigree at p. 3. There were two branches, that of Dod-Appaya and San-Appaya. The first defendant through whom the plaintiff claims is the daughter of Satyappa, the son of San-Appaya, who died in 1898. It was originally strenuously contended that the family was still joint, and that therefore, Dod-Appaya's branch succeeded by survivorship to the branch of San-Appaya on the death of Satyappa. But it has been proved beyond all doubt that before Satyappa died his branch was divided, and he was with regard to the plaint properties a tenant-in-common. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed as barred by limitation. But the learned Judge has held the suit barred under Article 136 of the Indian Limitation Act, which clearly does not apply to this case, although possibly Article 144 m...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Sir Rameshvar Singh Bahadur Vs. Homeshvar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR721
Phillimore, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court at Patna which has reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpore. The question is whether the appellant is entitled to execute a decree dated the 27th July, 1906, or whether his right to do so is barred by the Indian Limitation Act of 1908. The only provision of that Act which can apply is Article 182 of the Schedule, which prescribes three years from the date of a decree or order of a Civil Court as the time within which it must be enforced, subject to exceptions which do not affect the present case.2. It appears that a former Maharaja of Darbhanga, who was the grandfather and predecessor-in-title of the appellant, made a Babuana grant of land to his younger son on condition that the Government revenue and cesses to which it was subject should be regularly provided for payment over to the Government, This younger son died leaving two sons of his own, Ekradeshvar and Janeshvar, who lived jointly for some time and then di...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. A.H. Forbes
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR727
Viscount Cave, J.1. In their Lordships' opinion there is no ground for this appeal. Proceedings to set aside the sale were taken both under Section 311 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, corresponding with Order XXI, Rule 90, of the Rules scheduled to the Civil Procedure Code of 1908, and under Section 313 of the Code of 1882, corresponding with Rule 91 of the same Order. The sale was duly set aside; and accordingly Order XXI, Rule 93, applied and the Court had power to order interest to be paid on the sum of Rs. 40,708 paid to the trustees. This being by it is unnecessary to consider whether, as the High Court appears to have held, Section 144 of the Code of 1908 also applied. It is true that the bond did not reserve interest, but the effect of this omission was, not that the Court was deprived of its power to order interest to be paid, but only that the security did not extend to interest. It is common ground that the order so far as it directs the payment of interest is not intend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›