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.
Vithaldas Prabhu Vs. Subraya Manjappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom127; (1920)22BOMLR1304
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The and defendant in Suit. No. 119 of 1911 prayed that the decree-holders realized much more than what was due on the decree which was sought to be executed, and prayed that the Darkhast should be struck off. The application has been granted in both the lower Courts. What had happened was this, in execution of their decree, the decree holders attached the mortgage decree in favour of their judgment-debtors. Order XXI, Rule 53, lays down the procedure to be followed when a decree, either for the payment of money or for sale in enforcement of a mortgage or charge is attached. The Court shall under Sub-rule (2), on the application of the creditor who has attached the decree of the judgment-debtor, proceed to execute the attached decree and apply the net proceeds in satisfaction of the decree sought to be executed. Instead of doing that the Court put up the decree for sale, and the decree was purcha...
Dundappa Basappa Yedal Vs. Bhimawa Baswantiappa Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom137; (1920)22BOMLR1306
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for an account under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act of a mortgage executed by her mother Somawa? In their written statement the defendants said that the plaintiff's mother Somawa was kept by Somanaik, therefore the plaintiff had no right to sue. The seventh issue was: Does the plaintiff prove that her mother Somawa was the lawful wife of Somanaik. The plaintiff's pleader notified to the Court that he did not wish to lead any evidence on issue No. 7, and it was, therefore, presumed that the plaintiff could not prove that Somawa was married to Somanaik. The Judge seemed to consider that that was conclusive and that the plaintiff being the illegitimate daughter of Somawa was unable to sue for an account.2. In appeal this question does not seem to have been dealt with. But the-appellant relied on the fourth ground of the appeal that it was not open to the defendant-respondents to question the status of the plaintiff-appellant's mother ...
Rajmal Girdharlal Marwadi Vs. Maruti Shivram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom389; (1920)22BOMLR1377
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to enforce an award against the defendants. Various issues were raised in the trial Court. The 4th issue was-Is the suit barred by limitation? The trial Court held that the suit was barred. It proceeded to find on the remaining issues. The result was that the suit was dismissed.2. In appeal the learned appellate Judge hold that the suit itself was not barred by limitation, but that it was barred by the rule of res judicata. It appears that the award was made on the 28th November 1910. The plaintiff then applied to file the award under para 20 of the Second Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code. That application was rejected on the 12th January 1914. The plaintiff could appeal against that order under Section 104 of the Civil Procedure Code. The plaintiff did appeal to the District Court, and also applied to the High Court in revision, but in both Courts the lower Court's decision was upheld.3. It has now been argued that the question whethe...
Emperor Vs. Rajaram Bhavanishankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1229
Shah, J.1. These are two applications in revision arising under the following circumstances:Accused No. 1 was in possession of a house at Dakore under a rent note dated the 13th of July 1918. The house belonged to the complainant, Bai Dhiraj. That rent-note expired in June 1919, and Bai Dhiraj asked accused No. 1 to vacate the house. About this time a document, Exhibit X in the case, is said to have been fabricated by accused No. 1. That document purports to be a rent-note executed by accused No. 1 in favour of Bai Dhiraj. It purports to have been executed on the 14th of June 1919, and the terms of the document indicate that Bai Dhiraj had let the house to him for four years on an annual rental of Rs. 30. This document was presented for registration by accused No. 1 on the 17th of June and on his admission of the execution of the document it was registered on that day. Bai Dhiraj, however, was anxious throughout to get possession of the house and in the course of her efforts to get acc...
Kondan Damu Vs. Indarchand Bacharaj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom393; (1920)22BOMLR1299
Norman Macleod, Kt. C.J.1. The plaintiff' sued to redeem a mortgage bond passed by the first four defendants on the 6th February 1905 for Rs. 600. The mortgage was admitted by the first four defendants. But the 5th defendant who had purchased the equity of redemption from defendant 1 denied all knowledge of the mortgage, and said that he was a purchaser of the land. Defendant 6 said that he was a purchaser from defendant 5, and that defendant 5 ought to pay the mortgage debt. The mortgage was proved. But what was the principal consideration was not proved. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that Rs. 600 was due and passed a decree for that amount against defendant 5 and the heirs of defendant 6.2. The 5th defendant appealed. The decree of the trial Court was reversed, because the learned Judge was of opinion that there ought to be sufficient data before the Court to enable it to determine how much of the claim was principal and how much was interest, and in the absence of such da...
Kondan Mard Damu and anr. Vs. Indarchand Bacharaj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom323
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to redeem a mortgage bond passed by the first four defendants on the 6th February 1905 for Rs. 600. The mortgage was admitted by the first four defendants. But the 5th defendant who had purchased the equity of redemption from defendant No. 1 denied ail knowledge of the mortgage, and said that he was a purchaser of the land. Defendant No. 6 said that he was a purchaser from defendant No. 5, and that defendant No. 5 ought to pay the mortgage debt. The mortgage was proved. But what was the principal consideration was not proved. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that Rs. 600 was due and passed a decree for that amount against defendant No. 5 and the heirs of defendant No. 6.2. The 5th defendant appealed. The decree of the trial Court was reversed, because the learned Judge was of opinion that there ought to be sufficient data before the Court to enable it to determine how much of the claim was principal and how much was interest, and i...
Rajaram Bhavanishankar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1920
Reported in: 59Ind.Cas.135
Shah, J.1. These are two applications in revision arising under the following circum-stances:2. Accused No. 1 was in possession of a house at Dakore under a rent note, dated the 13th of July 1918. The house belonged to the complainant, Bai Dhiraj. That rent note expired in June 1919, and Bai Dhiraj asked accused No. 1 to vacate the house. About this time a document, Exhibit X in the case, is said to have been fabricated by accused No. 1. That document purports to be a rent-note executed by accused No. 1 in favour of Bai Dhiraj. It purports to have been executed on the 14th of June 1919, and the terms of the document indicate that Bai Dhiraj had let the house to him for four years on an annual rental of Rs. 30. This document was presented for registration by accused No. 1 on the 17th of June and, on his admission of the execution of the document, it was registered on that day. Bai Dhiraj, however, was anxious throughout to get possession of the house and, in the course of her efforts to...
Ramkishna Timmanna Bhat Vs. Laxminarayan Narna Hegde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1181
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The only question which has been 'argued in second appeal is whether an adoption by a wife to her husband, the husband being alive and a lunatic, is a good adoption. Now in this Presidency the wife cannot adopt to her husband while he is alive without his express consent. Such an adoption must necessarily be a very rare occurrence, but where the consent of the husband is expressly required and the husband is a lunatic he cannot possibly give his consent. In this case it is suggested faintly that his mother could give consent on his behalf. But if we were to hold that the mother of a lunatic could give consent on his behalf to an adoption by his wife, then we should be making an addition to the Hindu law which, we think, we are not entitled to do. We think, therefore, that the learned District Judge was right and the appeal must be dismissed with costs, One set of costs....
Emperor Vs. Alex Pimento
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1224
Shah, J.1. Two points have been raised in support of this application: fast that the offence of defamation, of which the petitioners have been found guilty, is not complete as there is no proof in this case that the defamatory words actually caused harm to the reputation of person with reference to whom they were used, and secondly that certain evidence on behalf of the prosecution was improperly admitted by the trial Court after the defence evidence was closed.2. As regards the first point Mr. Thakor has relied upon Explanation 4 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and upon the judgment of Mr. Justice Davar in Emperor v. Anandrao Balkrishna (1914) 17 Bom. L.R. 82. Apart from the decisions, it seems to me that the words of the section lend no support whatever to the contention urged on behalf of the applicants. The words of the section material to the point under consideration are that 'whoever...makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person, intending to harm, or knowing...
Charan Das Vs. Amir Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1370
Buckmaster, J.1. Two questions arise upon this appeal -the first as to whether the Judicial Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province was right (a) in permitting the three first respondents to amend their pleadings, and (6) in dismissing certain appeal in that had been wrongly entered in his Court. The two points are distinct, but they both arise in connection with litigation set on foot by six distinct suits which have all been consolidated and dealt with as one. These suits were instituted by the three first respondents claiming a declaration that they were entitled to certain rights of pre-emption against the several defendants, who were vendees of different shares and interests in some 6,813 kanals in the village of Tazagram.2. The following table will show at once the dates of the conveyances which gave rise to the rights of pre-emption and take dates and numbers of the suits brought in connection with those rights. >---------------------------------------------------------...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »