Mumbai Court February 1920 Judgments
Goba Nathu Barola Vs. Sakharam Teju Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1101
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in execution of his decree purchased the suit property with leave of the Court. Not being able to get possession after his purchase, he brought this suit against the 1st defendant, his judgment-debtor, and the 2nd defendant, who claimed to have an interest in the property, but who did not fill the position of a judgment-debtor with regard to the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit as against both defendants on the ground that the plaintiff was the representative of the decree-holder, and the suit was barred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. In appeal the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit as against the 1st defendant was upheld, but the decree as against the 2nd defendant was set aside and the suit was remanded for trial.3. The plaintiff has appealed against that part of the decree which dismissed his suit against the 1st defendant, The 1st defendant has not appeared, and we have not had the advantage of heari...
Tag this Judgment!Annaya Madvalaya Vs. Sidaya Murgayya Salgar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1092
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, who is the sister's son of Virbhadrappa, is a nearer heir than the defendant who is great-grandson of Virbhadrappa'a paternal uncle. When the succession fell in at the death of Virbhadrappa's mother Nilawa, the defendant's father was alive, and there can be no doubt that the defendant's father, who was a gotraja sajiinda, was the nearer heir than the sister's son who would only rank as a bandhu. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Daluchand Balaram Marwadi Vs. Appi Khema Saste
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom282; (1920)22BOMLR1093
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff took three mortgage bonds on the 6th July 1900 for Rs. 99 each over the same property from the 1st defendant, the consideration being the balance of Km. 274 due on the previous account, and Rs. 23 paid in cash. He sued on one of the bands in 1911 and obtained a decree thereon. He did mention in his plaint that he held two other mortgages over the property, and that he would take separate steps on them. The property was sold in execution of the decree on the one bond, but was not sold subject to the other mortgage charges. It was sold free of any incumbrances, and realised more than the amount due on the bond in that suit. The plaintiff has now filed this suit on the remaining two mortgage bonds. He cannot ask for sale of the mortgaged property. That has already been sold free of the mortgages in the previous suit. But he does ask for a decree for the amount due on the remaining two mortgage bonds, which ho contends will be effective as regards ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Parvati Vs. Mansukh Jetha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1097
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff, the husband, for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife, the 1st defendant. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. In appeal the plaintiff got a decree. The 1st defendant was ordered to go and live with her husband. Order XXI, Rule 38, gives the Court discretion to order that such a decree shall not be executed by detention in prison. The learned appellate Judge has considered that rule, but considered that as the wife had already suffered rigorous imprisonment for three years on a criminal charge, and was quite accustomed to that life, it would not be any violence to her feelings to be asked to go to jail for wilful disobedience of the Court's order.2. Now it may be admitted that the Court has power to give a husband a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, and no doubt the Court has power to order the wife, if she does not obey the decree, to go to jail. But the Code especially provides that the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Narayan Datar Vs. Sadashiv Keshav Limaye and Raghunath Ramchan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom257; (1920)22BOMLR1082
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the suit property together with Rs. 109-9-6 as damages and costs. In the trial Court the plaintiffs succeeded. An appeal by the defendants to the District Judge was dismissed.2. The plaintiffs claimed title through their vendors, who were the purchasers at a revenue sale on the 27th of May 1904, which was confirmed on the 6th of August 1904. The defendants remained in possession. They resisted the plaintiffs' claim to possession on the ground that the sale was invalid.3. The first question is whether the defendants can raise this defence, since they did not file a suit to set aside the sale within one year under Article 12A of the Indian Limitation Act. That question was decided in favour of the defendant in Venkatachalapathi Ayyar v. Robert Fischer I.L.R.(1907) Mad. 444. The reasoning appears to be that the Limitation Act applies only to the limitation of suits, and it is only when a suit comes withi...
Tag this Judgment!Dayal Kausual Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1089
Heaton, J.1. This is suit which the plaintiff brought for the reversal of an order passed by the Collector of Surat directing the plaintiff to remove an alleged encroachment on a public road, and for an injunction against the defendant to suspend the said order pending the suit. When the suit came on for hearing before the District Judge of Surat, he held that it was barred by Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, because the plaintiff had not presented all the appeals allowed by law in the matter. In fact he had not presented any appeal. The Collector's order was made on the 6th of February 1917, and, on the 21st of April, i. e., nearly two and a half months later, the Collector followed up his order by intimation that unless the plaintiff filed a suit, the order would be given practical effect to by removing the encroachment. Thereupon the plaintiff did file this suit, Moreover, it would seem that the plaintiff never either before filing the suit or afterwards made any a...
Tag this Judgment!Madhadev Narayan Datar and ors. Vs. Sadashiv Keshev Limaye,
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom45
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the suit property together with Rs. 109-9-6 as damages and costs. In the trial Court the plaintiffs succeeded. An appeal by the defendants to the District Judge was dismissed.2. The plaintiffs claimed title trough their vendors, who were the purchasers at a revenue sale on the 27th of May 1904, which was confirmed on the 6th of August 1904. The defendants remained in possession. They resisted the plaintiff's claim to possession on the ground that the sale was invalid.3. The first question is, whether the defendants can raise this defence, since they did not file a suit to set aside the sale within one year under Article 12A of the Limitation Act. That question was decided in favour of the defendant in Venkatachalapathi Ayyar v. Robert Fischer (1907) 30 Mad. 444. The reasoning appears to be that the Limitation Act applies only to the limitation of suits, and it is only when a suit comes within Section ...
Tag this Judgment!Dayal Khushal Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.122
Heaton, J.1. This is a suit which the plaintiff brought for the reversal of an order passed by the Collector of Surat directing the plaintiff to remove an alleged encroachment on a public road, and for an injunction against the defendant to suspend the said order pending the suit. When the suit same on for hearing before the District Judge of Surat, he held that it was barred by Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, because the plaintiff had not presented all the appeals allowed by law in the matter. In fact, he had not presented any appeal. The Collector's order was made on the 6th of February 1917, and, on the 21st of April, i.e., nearly two and a half months later, the Collector followed up his order by intimation that, unless the plaintiff filed a suit, the order would be given practical effect to by removing the encroachment. Thereupon the plaintiff did file this suit. Moreover, it would seem that the plaintiff never, either before filing the suit or afterwards, made ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandu Bala Jagtap Vs. Ramchandra Ganesh Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR665
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover enhanced rent from the defendant who was his permanent tenant. The defendant pleaded that he was liable to pay only the amount of the assessment in respect of the land held by him and nothing more. 2. The trial Court disallowed the defendant's contention and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff allowing him certain enhanced rent. In appeal the District Court affirmed the view that the plaintiff was entitled to enhance the rent and varied the decree of the trial Court as to the amount which was to be allowed as enhanced rent.3. The defendant preferred a second appeal to this Court, and the view taken by the appellate Court was affirmed in that appeal. From this decision of a single Judge in second appeal the present appeal under the Letters Patent is preferred to this Court.4. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the view taken by this Court as to the meaning of the expression 'alienated village' as used in Section 217 o...
Tag this Judgment!Gol Daji Hathi Vs. Dod Laxman Kursan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR648; 58Ind.Cas.226
Heaton, J.1. The facts in this case are somewhat complicated. ,But for the purposes of this second appeal the facts which emerge are these.2. The plaintiffs are now and at the date of the suit were the owners of the land in suit. They sued to eject the defendants. Out of the defendants those with whom we are concerned are defendants Nos. 1 and 3 who are in occupation of the land. They claimed to be there as permanent tenants. They appear to have been or they pretended to be uncertain as to who was their landlord, but that uncertainty is now removed. If they are tenants, their landlords are the plaintiffs. They claimed .that they were permanent tenants, and this fact certainly emerges, that they are either permanent tenants or annual tenants, and in either event they are entitled to notice.3. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the tenancy had not been legally determined by proper notice and dismissed the suit.4. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Court, and the District Co...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›