Mumbai Court April 1920 Judgments
R.M.M.C.T. Vyravan Chetti Vs. V.K.N.S.P. Subramanian Chetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1357
Buckmaster, J.1. Their Lordships think it unnecessary to trouble counsel for the respondents in this case.2. The appellants are the first mortgagees of certain property. The respondents hold a second mortgage upon the same estates. It is unnecessary to determine the circumstances under which those mortgages arose, or the history of the title of the mortgagor. It is sufficient to say that on the 14th March, 1007, an agreement was entered into between the first mortgagees and the second mortgagees which has given rise to the present dispute. The effect of that argeement was to put the first and the second incumbrances on a relative position of equality with regard to the security The appellants having realised part of the estate, the respondents instituted the proceedings out of which this appeal has arisen for the purpose of obtaining their share of the proceeds to which they claimed to be entitled by virtue of the agreement. The answer that was raised was, first, that the agreement req...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Deo Garu Vs. Chaitana Sahu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1313
Buckmaster, J.1. Their Lordships think that this appeal can be dealt with in a very few sentences.2. The respondents brought an action against the appellant upon an account stated and the learned Subordinate Judge, before whom the cane was heard, found that the account stated was a deliberate fabrication and fraud on the respondents' part. It followed that they were compelled to rely entirely upon the items of claims contained in a general account against the appellant On examination of that account the explanation of why the stated and settled account had been fraudulently prepared became obvious. It was because each one of the items was barred by the Statute of' Limitations, the result being that when once the settled account was displaced the plaintiffs had no foothold whatever m the Courts. The defendants, however, considered that they ought not to rely upon the lapse of time to deprive the plaintiffs of' the benefit of any item which they were in a, position to prove and the case ...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Gowroji Nakhwa Vs. Ramji Antone Nakhwa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom93; (1921)23BOMLR939
Marten, J.1. This suit is one of a series of disputes between the Colaba and Mandvi sections of Bombay fishermen with respect to certain fishing stakes and fishing grounds in tidal navigable waters oft' the Oyster Rock in the Port of Bombay. It is in the nature of a test case, and certain other suits have been stayed by the consent of the parties pending the hearing of the present suit.2. In the present suit the plaintiff is a Colaba Hindu fisherman, and the defendant is a Mandvi Christian fisherman. But there are Hindus as well as Christians among the Mandvi fishermen. The stakes in dispute in the suit are Nos. 31 and 32 in the line of stakes lying to the south-east of Oyster Rock and known as Bhairchee Kau, which means further from the shore. The other. lines of stakes lie to the north-east of the Oyster Rock and are known as Durchee Kau or nearer the shore. We are not concerned with the latter stakes in this suit except indirectly.3. Very briefly stated, the plaintiff claims that th...
Tag this Judgment!Jamshedji Naoroji Gamadia Vs. Sorabji Naoroji Gamadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom414; (1923)25BOMLR1137
Marten, J.1. We have three applications before us, viz., (1) an application by respondent No. 1 to approve the draft minutes embodying the consent and other terms alleged to have been arrived at on the hearing of this appeal on Friday September 19, 1919; (2) a notice of motion by the second respondent dated October 7, 1919, asking for a declaration that the arrangement, if any, arrived at to take a consent decree, is not binding on him, and that the hearing of the appeal be proceeded with, and that if necessary he, the applicant, be made a party appellant; and (3) a notice of motion by the appellants dated October 9, 1919, asking that their consent may be excluded from the proposed decree, and that the said decree be not certified to be for the benefit of the minor respondent No. 10. [ After stating the facts his Lordship proceeded: ]2. It is certainly curious to find an appeal presented on the ground that the trial Judge has given the appellants too much, viz., absolute interests, and...
Tag this Judgment!Jamshedji Naoroji Gamadia and anr. Vs. Sorabji Naoroji Gamadia and anr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1920
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.504
Marten, J.1. We have three applications before us, viz., (1) an application by respondent No. 1 to approve the draft minutes embodying the consent and other terms alleged to have been arrived at on the hearing of this appeal on Friday September 19, 1919; (2) a notice of motion by the second respondent dated October 7, 1919, asking for a declaration that the arrangement, if any, arrived at to take a consent decree, is not binding on him, and that the hearing of the appeal be proceeded with, and that if necessary he, the applicant, be made a party appellant; and (3) a notice of motion by the appellants dated October 9, 1919, asking that their consent may be; excluded from the proposed decree, and that the said decree be not certified to be for the benefit of the minor respondent No. 10. [After stating the facts his Lordship proceeded:].2. It is certainly curious to find an appeal presented on the ground that the Trial Judge has given the appellants too much, viz., absolute interests, and...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnabai Govind Joshi Vs. Keshav Gajanan Potbhare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1162
Crump, J.1. The only question which arises for our decision in this case is, whether an uncle's daughter is or is not gotraja sapinda. Mr. Bhat for the appellant has sought to argue from a case of a sister that this question should be answered in the affirmative. It is almost sufficient to point out that Mr. Bhat has been forced to admit that the logical conclusion of his line of reasoning would be that all females must necessarily be counted as gotraja saprindas. We think that this would be contrary to the fundamental principles of the Hindu law as hitherto interpreted by our Court. The lower Court has correctly stated that as a general rule, the Hindu law is opposed to succession of females and that such female heirs as have been recognized as entitled to inherit come in as exceptions to this general rule. It is therefore unsound to attempt to extend these exceptions by arguing that there is any principle involved in those cases where such exceptions are permitted. The special case o...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaichand Kirparam Vs. Ranchhoddas Manchharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR670; 58Ind.Cas.231
Shah, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case mortgaged the house in suit to defendant No. 1 in 1910 with possession. They continued in possession under a rent-note passed at the same time to the mortgagee. In 1914 the defendant No. 1 sued the plaintiffs to recover possession of the house and the rent due on the rent-note, and obtained a decree against them. In execution he obtained possession of the house and attached the equity of redemption in the house and one land owned by the mortgagors.2. This land was mortgaged to one Bai Nandkore who assigned her rights to defendant 3. Defendant No. 2 purchased the house and the land in January 1916: and both the sales were confirmed in March 1916. The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs in January 1917 to set aside the decree and the sales held in execution thereof. For the purpose of this second appeal it is needless to state the allegations upon which he sought to set aside the decree and both the sales. It is enough to state that the trial C...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›