Mumbai Court July 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.
Lalchand Sakharam Marwadi Vs. Khandu Kedu Ughade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1431
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for accounts under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and for redemption of a mortgage. The first nine plaintiffs were the descendants of four brothers who passed the original mortgage in 1869. I do not know why the other plaintiffs were made parties, for the descendants of four other brothers by the same father have no interest whatever in the mortgaged property. In 1879 Mahadu, one of the first set of four brothers, executed a Rajinama in his capacity of registered occupant of the mortgaged property in favour of Government, and the mortgagee executed a corresponding Kabulayat. Since then the mortgagee has been in occupation of the mortgaged land. The mortgage bond was restored to Mahadu with an endorsement that it had been satisfied. The question is whether the equity of redemption which existed in favour of the remaining three brothers continued and whether it still continues in favour of their descendants. The really important iss...
In Re: Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom463
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. As a preliminary question to the hearing of this reference, it has been argued by Mr. Bahadurji for the third party that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter referred because Section 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act only deals with claims or objections which, but for the passing of the Act, might have been tried or investigated by a civil Court. The meaning the earned Counsel gives to those words is this, that if there was any claim or objection which was excluded before the passing of the Act from the cognizance of the civil Courts, then it could not be said to have been within the cognizance of the civil Courts but for the passing of the Act. Speaking for myself, I do not think that is a proper interpretation to be put on Section 12. Act X of 1876, (Revenue Jurisdiction Act) was a consolidating Act passed, by the Government of India, and the object of it appears in the preamble which states 'Whereas in certain parts of the Presidency ...
W. Krishnamachariar Vs. A. Sankara Sah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1343
Buckmaster, J.1. This appeal involves the construction of an inartistic document and the application of clear provisions of law to ascertained facts.2. In December, 1910, the Corporation of Madras were inviting tenders for a contract to mend roads and supply the necessary material. The first appellant introduced the matter to the respondent who is a man of means. The father of the second appellant appears to have possessed considerable knowledge of the work that was required, but unfortunately he was insolvent. Negotiations then took place between the two appellants and the respondent as to the best means by which the tender for the contract might be put forward and the resulting profits divided between them. Ultimately it was arranged that a lease of certain quarries from which the metal would be obtained should be taken from the Corporation in the name of the first appellant who should then transfer it to the respondent, the tender for the work being made in the name of the defendant...
Maneklal Vamanrao Vs. Bai Amba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom224(1); (1920)22BOMLR1394
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit in ejectment. The defendant pleaded that she was a permanent tenant. The trial Court gave the plaintiffs a decree which was reversed in appeal. It is curious that a Judge of the experience of Mr. Bhatic should have considered that the onus lay on the plaintiffs in an ejectment suit to prove that the tenancy was an annual one. The presumption is that the tenant is an annual tenant and the onus lies upon him to prove he is something more. But it is perfectly clear that that initial error of the learned Judge had no effect on the final decision. If we 'strike out the whole of that paragraph where he considers the case from the point of view of the plaintiffs, and begin with the paragraph where he deals with the defendant's evidence, the decision still remains correct. A defendant who wishes to prove he is a permanent tenant must prove, first of all, if he has not got a document of permanent tenancy, the antiquity of his tenure. The Judge on the...
Prabhulingappa Khangouda Desai Vs. Gurunath Balaji Kalkundri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom256; (1920)22BOMLR1389
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. This is a first appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge in Darkhast No. 321 of 1917. The original suit was decided and a decree was passed in the Sangli Court on the 18th of September 1907. The first Darkhast presented to the Sangli Court ended on the 25th of June 1907 without any result as the decree-holder failed to pay process fees. The second Darkhast was filed in the same Court on the 11th of November 1907 and on the 14th of that month that Court transferred the proceedings to the Court at Shahapur. The , Darkhast ended on the 21th of March 1915 after the recovery of Rs. 11, 412-3-0. The third Darkhast was presented in the Sangli Court on the 9th of August 1915. It proved ineffectual and was disposed of on the 10th of November 1915. The next Darkhast was presented in the Belgaum Court (Darkhast No. 476 of 1915) and was disposed of without result on the 26th of May 1917. The Darkhast under appeal was presented to the Belgaum Court on t...
Prabhuling Appa Khangouda Desai Vs. Gurunath Balaji Kalkundri and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom453
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a first appeal from the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge in Dar-khast No. 321 of 1917. The original suit was decided and a decree was passed in the Sangli Court on the 18th of September 1907. The first Darkhast presented to the Sangli Court ended on the 25th of June 1907 without any result as the decree-holder failed to pay process fees. The second darkhast was filed in the same Court on the 11th of November 1907 and on the 14th of that month that Court transferred the proceedings to the Court at Shahapur. The Darkhast ended on the 24th of March 1915 after the recovery of Rs. 11,412-3-0. The third Darkhast was presented in the Sangli Court on 9th of August 1915. It proved ineffectual and was disposed of on the 10th of November 1915. The next Darkhast was presented in the Belgaum Court (Darkhast No. 476 of 1915) and was disposed of without result on the 26th of May 1917. The Darkhast under appeal was presented to the Belgaum Court on the 27th...
Basvanappa Shivrudrappa Vs. Krishnadas Govardhandas Madiwale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1387
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover a sum of Rs. 866-3-3 alleged to be due on account of cotton dealings with the defendant between 20th May 1918 and 26th June 1913. The suit was filed in the Hubli Court on the 7th June 1916, and admittedly was then within time because the Court opened after the vacation on the 7th June. The defendant then pleaded that he was an agriculturist with the result that the suit had to be filed in another Court, and the plaint was ordered on the 15th January 1917 to be returned for presentation to the proper Court. The plaintiff actually took away his plaint on the 25th January and presented it on the same day in the Haveri Court. Clearly Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act applies and the time taken up in the former application from the date on which it was instituted till the date on which the proceedings therein ended, had to be counted. It was first argued that the proceedings ended on the 15th January instead of 25th...
Bapu Tatya Desai Vs. Bala Raojee Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1383
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of a moiety of the plaint lands after setting aside the sale-deed passed on 28th July 1905 by their mother during their minority. The three plaintiffs are brothers, members of a joint family, and it is admitted that the third plaintiff was more than 21 years when he filed the suit. Therefore under Article 44 of the Indian Limitation Act, the suit as against him was clearly barred. The question arises whether Section 7 of the Indian Limitation Act is applicable and whether the bar also applies to the first and second plaintiffs who are still minors. They will be barred if the third plaintiff could have given a discharge and acquaintance of all claims against the defendants without the concurrence of the first and second plaintiffs as manager of the joint Hindu family. Now the cause of action which the plaintiffs had owing to the sale-deed executed by their mother being, as they alleged, contrary to their interest, was...
Emperor Vs. Alibhai Abdul Vora
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom166; (1920)22BOMLR1221
Crump, J.1. This is a reference from the District Magistrate of Kaira recommending this Court to set aside an order passed under Section 250 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing compensation of Rs. 30 to be paid to accused No. 1 in the case on the ground that the complaint was frivolous and vexatious. It appears that the complaint in this case was originally lodged against three persons. Process was issued against two of them and as regards accused No. 2 the complainant presented an application for compromise and an order was made acquitting that accused under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case proceeded against accused No. 1 alone with the result that it has already been stated.2. The District Magistrate bases his recommendation upon the ground that where there are more than one person against whom the complaint has been made, the offence cannot be compounded as regards one such person only. Oar attention has been invited to a decision (Chandra Kumar Das v....
Gangabai Vs. Jankibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom380; (1920)22BOMLR1309
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover possession of a part of the house conveyed under a sale-deed executed by defendant No. 1, Ramchandra, in the year 1904 in favour of the plaintiff's mother as his guardian, during the plaintiffs minority. The defendant No. 1 occupied the house as a tenant under a rent-note, which expired in February 1909. At the date of the suit his wife, Jankibai, defendant No. 2, was in possession of a part of the house now in question. The suit was filed against both of them. The defendant No. 1 died during the pendency of the suit and ultimately the suit was defended by the wife both in her own right and as the legal representative of; her husband. She pleaded that the sale-deed was a hollow transaction and that in any case she had the right of residence in that part of the house and that the purchaser must be taken to have purchased it subject to that right. There was also a plea of fraud. On a consideration of all the defences the trial Court f...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »