Mumbai Court December 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.
Hamidalli Kadamalli Vs. Ahmedalli Mhibuballi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom67; (1921)23BOMLR480
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the District Judge confirming the order of the lower Court directing the execution to proceed further.2. The plaintiffs had obtained a decree on the 26th September 1903 entitling them to recover an half share in certain property by partition from the defendants. In second appeal the plaintiffs' share was reduced to one quarter. Meanwhile the plaintiffs got possession under the decree of the Trial Court, and the defendants were seeking execution according to the terms of the decree of the appellate Court.3. The first question which was raised in objection to the defendants' application was whether it was in time. It was argued that this was not an application in execution of the decree and therefore Article 182, First Schedule, of the Indian Limitation Act was not applicable. But it was decided by a Bench of this Court in Kurgodigauda v. Ningangauda : AIR1917Bom210 that an order under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code...
Malraju Lakshmi Venkayyamma Row Bahadur Zamindarini Garu Vs. Venkatadr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR713
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated the 7th September 1914, of the High Court at Madras, by which the previous decree of the Subordinate Judge of Kistna at Ellore, of the 29th September, 1909, was affirmed with certain variations.2. The appellant is the plaintiff, Sri Rajah Malraju Lakshmi Venkayyainma Row Bahadur Zamindarini Garu, and she instituted this suit as far back as the 5th December, 1902. By her plaint she prayed that she might be declared entitled to recover ' the jewels, vessels, etc., mentioned in the schedule, or their value,' and that the defendants should deliver to the plaintiff these jewels, vessels, etc., or pay their value, Rs. 1,65,136-1-3. Relief was also sought as to the income of certain villages with interest.3. The jewels were in the possession of Rani Papamma Row at her death, The original defendants 1 to 3, now represented by the present respondents, were alleged in the plaint to be the heirs to all properties that belo...
Venkatesh Keval Shetti Vs. Bhiku Venkatesh Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom1135
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal was dismissed on a preliminary issue as the learned Judge considered that the case was governed by Article 47 of the Indian Limitation Act and that the suit was out of time.2. The plaintiff in 1913 filed a suit in the Mamlatdar's Court against the defendant for an injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing his possession in the suit land. The plaintiff obtained an injunction in 1913. The defendant applied to the District Deputy Collector in revision and he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. If that decision could stand, it might be said that it was an order binding upon the plaintiff with regard to the possession of the suit land, so as to come within the first class of the orders which a Mamlatdar can pass on the question, as laid down in the judgment of Mr. Justice Chandavarkar in Tukaram v. Hari (1904) 28 Bom. 601. But it is perfectly clear that the District Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Mamlatd...
Shantmurti Devappa Kalyanpur Vs. Narayan Ramchandra Prabhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom209(1); (1921)23BOMLR476
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application to get aside a sale in Darkhast No. 286 of 1916. The mortgage decree was passed 1980 in favour of the plaintiff in the original suit and the sale was held of the 20th June 1919. Defendant No. 7 was a party to ' the suit. On the 7th July 1919 he made an application to the Collector to set aside the sale on the ground that he had been prejudiced by the sale of a certain Survey Number, which was sold in priority to other Survey Numbers in which he had no interest. Under Rule 17 on page 106 of the Manual of Circulars, the Collector should have at once referred the applicant to the Court executing the decree. Unfortunately, the Collector did not read Rule 17 in the right way. He appears to have inquired into the matter on the complaint of defendant No. 7 and then referred the application to the First Class Subordinate Judge for him to set aside the sale on the 28th August 1919.2. It is difficult to imagine how the Collector came to make suc...
Shantmurti Devappa Kallyanpur Vs. Narayan Ramchandra Prabhu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom1132
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application to set aside a sale in Darkhast No. 286 of 1916. The mortgage decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs in the original suit and the sale was held on the 20th June 1919. Defendant No. 7 was a party to the suit. On the 7th July 1919 he made an application to the Collector to set aside the sale on the ground that he had been prejudiced by the sale of a certain Survey Number which was sold in priority to other Survey Numbers in which he had no interest. Under Rule 17 on page 106 of the Manual of Circulars, the Collector should have at once referred the applicant to the Court executing the decree. Unfortunately, the Collector did not read Rule 17 in the right way. He appears to have inquired into the matter on the complaint of defendant No. 7 and then referred the application to the First Class Subordinate Judge for him to set aside the sale on the 28th August 1919.2. It is difficult to imagine how the Collector came to make such a mis...
Radhakrishna Ayyar Vs. Swaminatha Ayyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR718
Buckmaster, J.1. In this case a preliminary objection is taken to the appeal on behalf of the respondent based upon the ground that no proper certificate) of appeal has been granted, and that the appeal is consequently incompetent.2. The conditions that regulate the granting of certificates for leave to appeal have been clearly stated in the cases referred to by counsel for the respondent: Banarsi Far shad v. Kashi Krishna Narain and Radha Krlahn Das v. Rai Krishn Chand It is not necessary to examine them again for the principle which they establish is plain and cannot be questioned. That principle is this: that as an initial condition to appeal to His Majesty in Council, it is essential that the petitioners should satisfy the Court that the subject-matter of the suit is Rs. 10,000, and in addition that in certain cases there should be added some substantial question of law. This does not cover the whole grounds of appeal, because it is plain that there may be certain cases in which it...
Emperor Vs. Babu Santu Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR358; 61Ind.Cas.52
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused was charged under Section 279, Indian Penal Code, with having driven a motor car No. 7559 in such a rash and negligent manner as to endanger human life, having collided with Victoria No. 1 and damaged it. The Magistrate found the accused guilty and sentenced him to two months' rigorous imprisonment and also directed his license to be suspended for twelve months. We are asked to interfere in revision. It is impossible to say that the conviction was wrong. The only way in which we could possibly interfere would be as regards the sentence. Speaking for myself, I am very anxious to avoid interfering with the sentences of subordinate Courts unless there are sufficient reasons for such interference. The fact that if I had tried the offence myself I might have inflicted a lesser sentence is not a sufficient reason, for if that were so we should be asked to interfere with every sentence which is passed. The sentence to be passed after conviction must be ...
Chhaganlal Kalidas Vs. Farasram Kurnashankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom142; (1921)23BOMLR473
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for execution of the decree obtained by one Karunashankar Aditram on the 18th May 1915 on a mortgage of a house executed by the defendant. The decree was for Rs. 662-15-0 including costs and the amount was made payable by annual instalments of Rb. 60 commencing from the 15th April 1916. Karunashankar died in October 1915, leaving a widow and a minor son. On the 6th September 1916 the widow and Deputy Nazir of the District Court were appointed guardians of the property of the minor and on 10th January 1917 the widow and the Deputy Nazir presented this Darkhast for the recovery of the first instalment of Rs. 60 due on the 16th April 1916. The defendant contended that shortly after Karunashankar's death he compromised the decretal debt with the widow as the mother and natural guardian of the minor for Rs. 350 and paid that amount to her in two sums of Rs. 200 and 150 and the decree duly endorsed by her as fully satisfied.2. Under Section ...
In Re: Holibasappa Pareppa Sangoli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom394; (1921)23BOMLR357; 61Ind.Cas.63
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In certain proceedings before Mr. Nesarikar, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belgaum, in the case of Imperator v. Gurpadawa certain remarks were made by the Magistrate prejudicial to the petitioner who was not a party to the proceeding nor a witness in the case. The petitioner has asked us to express an opinion with regard to those remarks. We confine ourselves to saying that it is very undesirable that a Judge or a Magistrate should make remarks which are prejudicial to the character of a person who is neither a party nor a witness in the proceeding before him, and who has, therefore, no opportunity of giving an explanation or defending himself against the remarks made by the Court. That is a principle which has more than once been laid down by the Courts....
Raja of Ramnad Vs. Velusami Tevar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR701
Moulton, J.1. In this appeal the appellant is the assignee of a decree against the defendants (some of whom are minors and are represented by their guardian) which was passed on the 26th September, 1907. The amount of the decree was Ra. 35, 063 and interest. The decree was in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit and went on to order that the plaintiffs should at once draw out the money in Court which was a sum of about Rs. 3.000, and that the first and second defendants should repay the balance within three months with interest and costs, and in default of such payment that the plaintiffs should recover the sum by the sale of the entire cowle right possessed by them including the interest if any of the third defendant also, and if the sale proceeds were not sufficient for the purpose the plaintiff should recover the deficiency from the first and second defendants.2. The judgment-debtors made no payment and accordingly in January, 1909, the decree holder put in his application for execu...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›