Mumbai Court June 1920 Judgments
Janardan Trimbak Gadre Vs. Martand Teimbak Gadre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom208; (1920)22BOMLR1212
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff applied in Darkhast No. 138 of 1918 for a stay of execution proceedings for the execution of the decree in Suit No. 61) of 1915 pending the disposal of his suit No. 110 of 1918 in which he prayed for a decoration that the decree in Suit No. 69 of 1915 was void and in Capable of execution as against him.2. The First Class Subordinate Judge of Pooma made an order for stay of execution in Darkhast No. 138 of 1918 pending the disposal of the plaintiff's suit on the plaintiff's furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 11,000.3. The question now arises whether that is an appealable order. It can only be appealable if it is an order under Section 47. In Section 47 no mention is made of an order for stay of execution. The words which appear at the end of Section 244 (c) in the Code of 1882 'o the stay of execution thereof' have been omitted. It is that the words are omitted, because they are unnecessary, question regarding the stay of execution being a...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Ranchhod Vs. Sayad Abdul Rahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom395; (1920)22BOMLR1214
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued for possession of the plaint land from the defendant and for Rs. 16 as rent for the season of Samvat 1972, alleging that the defendant was cultivating the plaint land, that he had passed a rent note for the same for Samvat 1939, and that he was holding over on the expiration of that year. The defendant in his written statement pleaded that his ancestors were permanent tenants on the land and so he was a permanent tenant. That the suit was also bad as plaintiff had given no notice to determine the alleged tenancy.2. The trial Court found that the permanent tenancy set up by the defendant was not proved. But the plaintiffs claim for possession was rejected on the ground that it was bad for want of notice. Accordingly a decree was passed for the amount of rent only. In appeal the learned appellate Judge also held that the defendant had not proved his permanent tenancy. But he differed from the decision of the lower Court on the q...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Trimbak Gadre Vs. Martand Trimbak Gadre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.523
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff applied in darkhatt No. 138 of 1918 for a stay of execution proceeding for the execution of the decree in Suit No. 69 of 1915, pending the disposal of his Suit No. 110 of 1918 in which he prayed for a declaration that the decree in Suit No. 69 of 1915 was void and incapable of execution as against him.2. The First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona made an order for stay of execution in darkhast No. 138 of 1918 pending the disposal of the plaintiff's suit, on the plaintiff's furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 11.000.3. The question now arises whether that is an appealable order. It can only be appealable if it is an order under Section 47. In Section 47 no mention is made of an order for stay of execution. The words which appear at the end of Section 244(c) in the Code of 1882, 'or to the stay of execution thereof' have been omitted. It is argued that the words are omitted because they are unnecessary, the question regarding the stay of extensio...
Tag this Judgment!Balwant Rao Vs. Baji Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1070
Dunedin, J.1. In 1868, one Bapuji died, leaving', amongst other properties, two mouzahs, Chikni and Bidhi, situated in the Wardha district of the Central Provinces. He was succeeded by Saras wati, his daughter, who entered into possession of the .mouzahs She died in 1889), leaving .three sons. During her life-time she alienated various portions of the inouzahs to different persons. After her death her sons raised action to recover their alienated portions, and cross actions wore raised by the purchasers. All the actions depended on the determination of the same question, viz,, had Saraswuti tin absolute right in the mouzahs, or had she only the same class of limited interest as possessed by a Hindu widow.' Accordingly, one action was taken as a test case, the others abiding by its results. The learned District Judge found that she had an absolute interest; but on appeal the Judicial Commissioner reversed his decree. Formal judgments in all the actions were pronounced. Appeal has been t...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnadas Shivram Bari Vs. Chunilal Hambirmal Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom144; (1920)22BOMLR1207
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a first appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nasik who rejected the plaintiffs' claim for damages against the defendant for malicious prosecution. It appears that one Victim had obtained Home deforested land from Government on new terms in 1915 In October he sold the crop to the defendant. When the defendant wished to reap the crop, a claim was made on the first occasion by plaintiffs 2 and 4, and two days later the claim was renewed with the addition of plaintiff 1 who purported to have bought the crop from plaintiff 8. The defendant alleged that he had been assaulted by the servants of the plaintiff, and had left the ground under the honest belief that the plaintiffs had no right whatever to reap the crop and had, been guilty of a criminal offence. He thereupon lodged a complaint of theft against the plaintiffs is the first Court the plaintiffs were convicted that on appeal the conviction was reversed.2. The question now...
Tag this Judgment!Girjashankar Daji Bhat Vs. Murlidhar Narayan Chaudhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom209; 59Ind.Cas.271
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for an injunction restraining the defendants from prohibiting plaintiff from officiating in his vritti as Upadhyaya among the patidar Gujaratis of Yeola, and from receiving the perquisites of the vritti. The plaintiff alleged that he was the hereditary priest of the caste and had a right to officiate in the yajman vritti as such priest; that he had officiated in the vritti till Pausha of Samvat 1962; that the defendants asked him to do certain sets, prejudicial to his vritti, that the plaintiff refused to do these acts, and thereupon the defendants issued an illegal order to their friends and castemen that they should not allow the plaintiff to officiate in his vritti and pay the perquisites to him. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for an injunction. He succeeded in the lower Court. That decision was reversed in appeal, the Court finding that, although the plaintiff was the hereditary priest of Yeola, his continuance or removal from such office...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Mansukhram Vs. Maneklal Dayabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom147; (1920)22BOMLR1195
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. It would have been more satisfactory if the Small Cause Court Judge had given some reasons for coming to the conclusion he did contrary to that he arrived at nine months previously. Still the Privy Council ruling in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose I.L.R (1903) Cal. 539 : 5 Bom. L.R. 421, is too clear for us to consider any other decision possible. It may be said that a contract purporting to be made between two persons competent to contract, after it is discovered that one of the persons was a minor at the date of the contract, becomes thereby an agreement unenforceable by law, and therefore void under Section 2 of the Indian Contract Act, and until it was discovered to be void on the evidence, because one of the parties was a minor, it purported to be a perfectly good contract, But their Lordships of the Privy Council distinctly say that Section 65 starts from the basis of there being an agreement or contract between competent parties; and has no applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!Nathuram Shivanarayan Vs. Dhularam Hakiram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom407; (1920)22BOMLR1199
Fawcett, J.1. I concur. As regards the powers of interference vested in the High Court under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, I may add that a similar view has been taken by the Judicial Commissioner's Court in Sind in Rupchand v. Minhomal (1914) 8 L.R. 164 At the same time I think that interference in regard to appreciation of evidence should in general only be exercised when there appears to the Court to be a very clear case of; misappreciation, which has resulted in. injustice to a party and makes the decree one that cannot be regarded by a revisional Court as 'according to law.'2. In the present case the weight of the evidence as it stands was immensely in favour of the plaintiff, and is met only by an uncorroborated assertion that defendant had actually paid the money. Had the learned Subordinate Judge not considered that the plaintiff ought to have acted in a certain way for which there was certainly no obligation on the plaintiff, I do not imagine that he wou...
Tag this Judgment!Narsappa Ningappa Mali Vs. Bharmappa Rayappa Mall
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom408; (1920)22BOMLR1196
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Ningappa and continued by his sons after his death for one -third share in the property in suit. It is now found that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are the sons of Rayappa who was one of the four sons of Narasappa. Defendants Nos. 2 to 5 are the sons of Satyappa who was the son of Shidlingappa one of the sons of Narsappa. The property in suit originally belonged to Shiddappa, the sou of Ningappa, the second son of Narasappa. In 1910, Satyappa and the present plaintiff and defendant No. I filed a suit to recover the property which bslonged to Shiddappa from the then defendant who was in possession of that property. In that suit they claimed the property as the nearest heirs of Shiddappa. The reversion to Shiddappa opened on the death of his mother which took place in 1909, the widow of Shiddappa having died in 1908. The plaintiff's present claim is based on the allegation that he, defendant No. 1, and Satyappa, wer...
Tag this Judgment!Rajacharya Sheshacharya Shirhatti Vs. Chemanna Gurushantappa Magavi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom229; (1920)22BOMLR1193
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff-applicant applied under Order XXI, Rule 71 to recover the deficiency of price from a defaulting purchaser. His claim has been disallowed in two Courts. The question arises whether a second appeal lies. The claim is for Rs. 360. But for the provisions of Rule 71, a suit would have had to be filed for that amount. It would have been a Small Cause Court suit. But under the provisions of Rule 71 the decree-holder or the judgment-debtor can proceed in execution to recover the deficiency as if there had been a decree already passed for the payment of that amount. We think, therefore, that we must treat the application made by the plaintiff as one made in execution of a Small Cause Court decree, and there is no second appeal, from such an application. There is no reason why we should treat it as an application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »