Mumbai Court March 1920 Judgments
Kuverji Kavasji Shet Vs. the Municipality of Lonavala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom198; (1920)22BOMLR654; 58Ind.Cas.403
Shah, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain land from the Municipality of Lonavla. The Municipality took possession of the land in suit for the purpose of making a road in June 1908. In July 1903 the plaintiff's father was pressed by the Managing Committee of the Municipality to give over the land to the Municipality by way of gift, and, according to the finding of the lower appellate Court, which may be taken as a fact now, the plaintiff's father consented to make a free gift of the land to the Municipality. Beyond recording a resolution with reference to this so-called gift nothing further was done by the Municipality, nor by the plaintiff's father. Plaintiff's father died a few years later; and in 1914 the present suit was filed by the plaintiff to recover possession of the land from the Municipality. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff's father had acquiesced in the possession of this land being retained by the M...
Tag this Judgment!K.R. Chitguppi and Co. Vs. Vinayak Kashinath Khadilkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom164; (1920)22BOMLR659; 58Ind.Cas.184
Shah, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case sued defendant No. 1, the principal debtor, on the contract of nub-agency, for the price of goods supplied to him and for accounts, and defendant No. 2 upon his contract of indemnity and guarantee.2. The defence of defendant No. 2, with which we are concerned in this appeal, was that in consequence of a subsequent variation in the contract between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 he was absolved from all liability in respect of the contract subsequent to the variation.3. The lower Courts have disallowed the plaintiff's claim as against defendant No. 2; and in the present appeal, which is against defendant No. 2, the question is whether the lower appellate Court is right in its conclusion as to the liability of defendant No. 2. The contract in question between the plaintiff's- and defendant No. 1 was entered into on the 1st of October 1909. Broadly speaking the contract was for the sale of certain goods by the sub-agent in the District of Poona o...
Tag this Judgment!Kulsambi Vs. Abdul Kadir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1142
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The parties to the suit are Sunni Mahomedans. The plaintiff filed the suit against her husband to recover her dower. The facts are that the parties were married in 1912 the defendant agreeing to pay as prompt dower 525 putlis2. Five months after the marriage the plaintiff, gave birth to a, fully developed child. Though it must be presumed that the marriage was consummated as the parties lived together for some time alter the marriage, the child was begotten by an unknown father. The defendant turned the plaintiff out of his house shortly after the child was born, but it has not been proved that he divorced her. No question of limitation, therefore, arises. The dower agreed upon was prompt and could be sued for.3. The plaintiff obtained a decree in the trial Court but this decree was reversed by the learned District Judge on the ground that the marriage was invalid owing to the concealment of pregnancy, and since cohabitation during pregnancy was contrary to ...
Tag this Judgment!Kulsumbi Kom Abdul Kadir Vs. Abdul Kadir Walad Saikh Ahmad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom205; (1921)ILR45Bom151
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The parties to the suit are Sunni Mahomedans. The plaintiff filed the suit against her husband to recover her dower. The facts are that the parties were married in 1912, the defendant agreeing to pay as prompt dower 525 putlis. Five months after the marriage the plaintiff gave birth to a fully developed child. Though it must be presumed that the marriage was consummated as the parties lived together for sometime after the marriage, the child was begotten by an unknown father. The defendant turned the plaintiff out of his house shortly after the child was born, but it has not been proved that he divorced her. No question of limitation, therefore, arises. The dower agreed upon was prompt and could be sued for.2. The plaintiff obtained a decree in the trial Court but this decree was reversed by the learned District Judge on the ground that the marriage was invalid owing to the concealment of pregnancy, and since cohabitation during pregnancy was contrary to Mah...
Tag this Judgment!Kooverbai Sorabji Manekji Vs. the Assistant Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1136
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Judge of Surat in Reference No. 5 of 1914. The land acquired was notified by Government in June 1912 on behalf of the B. B. & C. I. Ry. Go. The award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act by the officer appointed by Government amounted to Rs. 70 per guntha, the area to be, acquired being one acre and one guntha. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the market value of the ground was Rs. 60 per guntha. Ho allowed Rs. 369 damages for severance. The total being under the Collector's award, the Collector's award stood.2. The first point taken before us was that the first Acquisition Officer, Mr. Sedgwick, made an award, which was binding on the Government, amounting to Rs. 132 per guntha. That award was never communicated to the parties. The claimant never knew that Mr. Sedgwick had formed an opinion that the land was worth Rs. 132 a guntha, until Mr. Sedgwick was called in the case as a ...
Tag this Judgment!Chintamani Hargovan Vs. Ratanji Bhimbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1131
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for an injunction against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 restraining them from using the way in question as a way for Bhangis and other persons of an untouchable class to clean the privy intended to be erected by them. The plaintiff's' claim has been rejected in both Courts, The defendants 1 to 3 are the owners of a house which is marked on the left aide of the plan, and they instituted Suit No. 623 of 1912 against the present plaintiffs and defendant 4 to establish their right of passage for persons, cattle, carts etc., over the open ground in front of the houses of the then defendant. The then plaintiffs' right of easement was held to be proved to a passage of six feet in width, and a decree was passed in their favour, together with an injunction for the removal of the obstruction placed by the then defendant. At that time the privy in the defendants' house was situated at the opposite end of their premises, and there was no suggestion during th...
Tag this Judgment!Shriniwas Kuppuswami Mudliar Vs. M.C. Waz
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom427; (1920)22BOMLR1126
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The opponent, appellant in this case, was appointed Receiver in Suit No. 137 of 1913 which was a partnership suit. He applied for leave to pass his accounts and receive his remuneration. On the 26th October 1917, the plaintiff's pleader in that suit raised objections that the Receiver had not done his work properly; that owing to the Receiver's conduct the defendant had misappropriated the goods to a great extent; that if the Receiver had done his duty carefully and punctually, and had properly made inventories of the goods, the goods could not have been misappropriated; that from the beginning the Receiver had been grossly negligent, and had also helped the defendant ; and that under the circumstances he was not entitled to his fees for his services as Receiver, on the contrary he was liable for plaintiff's loss.2. The record shows that, on the 22nd December 1917, the Subordinate Judge passed the following order:-'The accounts submitted by the Receiver from...
Tag this Judgment!Daisy Amelia Borgonha Vs. Wilfred Churchill Borgonha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR361
Marten, J.1. This is a wife's petition for divorce on the ground of her husband's adultery, cruelty and desertion.2. The case is undefended but raises a question of some importance, viz., whether this Court Las jurisdiction to hear a petition where the parties last resided together outside the jurisdiction, but at the date of the petition are residing within the jurisdiction, separately and not together. This depends on the directions given in Section 3(1) of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1860) as to which High Court petitions under that Act are to be presented.3. The point was not raised until after the bulk of the evidence had been taken. I will accordingly deal with the matter in the same order, and state the facts first.4. The parties are domiciled Anglo-Indian Christians of the Protestant faith. They were married at Agra on the 31st of October 1898. They resided at various places after their marriage and finally at Muttra, which was the last place where the parties resided togethe...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chiman Damodar Bhate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR898; 58Ind.Cas.147
Shah J.1. This case has been decided by the Police Patil on the special oath of the complainant. The special oath was offered to the complainant at the instance of the accused and the decision is based on that oath. It has been held by this Court in Queen Empress v. Murarji Gokuldas I.L.R (1888) 13 Bom. 389 that Sections 9 to 11 of the Indian Oaths Act are not intended to apply to criminal proceedings. It is clear that the provision of the Indian Oaths Act relating to the special oaths cannot properly apply to criminal proceedings. Section 11 of the Act provides that the evidence given on special oath as against the person, who offered to be bound by it is con-elusive proof of the matter stated. It seems to me that in criminal matters the truth has to be ascertained by the Court; and the matter stated on special oath cannot be and ought not to be accepted as conclusively proved by such an oath in a criminal proceeding. The scheme of these sections shows that they are not intended to ap...
Tag this Judgment!Pranjivndas Narsidas Vs. Mia Chand Bahadur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom426; (1920)22BOMLR1123
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for redemption under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act alleging that the document dated 6th March 1911 passed by him to the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 3 to 8 for Its. 75 though in form a sale out and out was really in the nature of a mortgage. The defendant No. 9 obtained, on the 12th May 1915, a sale-deed from defendants 1 to 8 for Rs. 525 It has been found by both Courts that the sale-deed in favour of Tyeballi, the father of defendants 1 and 3 to 8, was really a mortgage. Accordingly a redemption decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants Nos. 9 and 10 have appealed, and contend that the plaintiff ought not to have been allowed to redeem the mortgage of 1911 on the ground that defendants 9 and 10 were bona fide purchasers for value without notice from the heirs of Tyeballi.2. The appellate Court seemed to be of the opinion that defendants 9 and 10 had notice. But except for the fact that Rs. 75 was mentioned ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »