Mumbai Court September 1920 Judgments
Chapsi Umersi Vs. Keshavji Damji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom224; (1921)23BOMLR133; 60Ind.Cas.960
Setalvad, J.1. This suit relates to a godown situated on the ground floor of a house at Mandvi belonging to one Keshavji Damji. On the 28th of September 1916, an agreement Was entered into between Keshavji Damji and the plaintiffs for a lease of this godown for twenty three months, to Keshavji commence from 25th December 1916. At this time the building was being reconstructed and the ground floor was expected to be ready in December and so the lease was made to commence from 25th December. The godown, however, became ready in February 1917, and the plaintiffs commenced paying rent from 22nd February 1917. The plaintiffs sub-let the godown to the defendants for Bs. 275 per month as from the 22nd of February 1917 and the defendants entered into possession on that date. The plaintiffs never themselves entered into possession except through their sub-tenant, the defendants. The defendants commenced paying rent to the plaintiffs from the 22nd February 1917. The defendants paid the said rent...
Tag this Judgment!Multanmal Jayaram Vs. Budhumal Kevalchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom252; (1921)23BOMLR325; 61Ind.Cas.70
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On the 1st February 1911, the plaintiffs bought for a sum of Rs. 5,000 two lands under a registered sale-deed passed to them by one Amolak as manager of a joint family. The plaintiffs were put in possession. One of the lands, Survey No. 192, was leased to one Bhavani under a rent-note. When the period of the rent-note had expired Bhavani refused to vacate and the plaintiffs had to sue for possession. In a possessory suit they got a decree for possession and filed Darkhast No. 440 of 1912 for possession. Bhavani retaliated by filing Suit No. 31 of 1913 claiming the property as his own and got a decree in September 1919, and thereafter he remained in possession of Survey No. 192 as owner. An appeal was filed by the plaintiffs against the decree in Suit No. 31 of 1913 in the District Court which confirmed the decree of the lower Court on the 15th March 1915. The plaintiffs then filed a Second Appeal to the High Court, and that appeal was dismissed on the 28th N...
Tag this Judgment!Faki Ibrahim Vs. Faki Gulam Mohindin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom459; 60Ind.Cas.986
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to get a sale-deed of the plaint-property executed, alleging that the defendant No. 1 had agreed to pass a sale-deed in his name on the 4th Marsh 1917, but afterwards refused to convey the plaint property to the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant relied upon a sale-deed executed by the 1st defendant in his favour on the 19th January 1918. It is admitted that the plaintiff was in possession, and that the 2nd defendant knew that the plaintiff was in possession, and made no inquiry as to the circumstances in which the plaintiff was in possession.2. The Trial Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the 2nd defendant had no notice, actual or constructive, of the contract between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff had been in possession since 1914, and admittedly was a mortgagee. The learned Trial Judge seemed to think that, although defendant No. 2 might be fixed with notice of the plaintiff's possession as mortgagee, be could not be f...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Avadhutrao Patil Vs. Tukaram Babaji Chaugula
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR311; 61Ind.Cas.761
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Some forty years ago four brothers, sons of one Joti, who were at that time joint, partitioned their family property. One item in the family property had been mortgaged with possession, and, therefore, was not divided. Maruti was the surviving brother of the four, and he died about 1911-12 leaving a widow Kasa. The plaintiffs claiming as heirs of Maruti have filed this suit to redeem the mortgage. In their plaint they stated that Maruti separated during his father's life-time after taking his share of the family property, and his widow Kasa had, therefore, no interest in the suit property. It has been proved that the plaintiff deposited Rs. 340 with the 1st defendant mortgagee, but as he insisted upon Kasa being a party to the redemption, the negotiations fell through, and the plaintiffs recovered their Rs. 340.2. Then defendant No. 1 allowed Kasa to redeem the property, which no doubt was most reprehensible, considering the attitude he had taken up when the...
Tag this Judgment!Dayabhai Chunilal Ghanchi Vs. Bai Ujam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom260; (1921)23BOMLR308; 61Ind.Cas.159
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in execution of a decree in a partition suit, which was passed on the 1st April 1908. On the 10th January 19 LO, it was varied to some extent in appeal, but the direction in the decree was that the house was to be sold and the proceeds divided between the parties. The plaintiff being under the impression that the decree in a partition suit was a preliminary decree and required a further decree to make it final, applied to the Court, on 23rd October 1912, to have the decree made final, and the decree was made final on the 10th of February 1913. The application was considered by the Court and it was ordered in the presence of the plaintiff's Vakil and the defendant No. l's Vakil, the other defendants being absent, that the said decree was made final.2. On the 8th October 1913, the plaintiff presented a Darkhast and notice was issued, but it was dismissed on the 25th April 1914 for default. The present Darkhast was issued on the 9th Augus...
Tag this Judgment!Sakaram Gopal Page Vs. Trimbakrao Ramchandra Mantri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR314; 61Ind.Cas.40
Crump, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff sought to recover Rs. 141-13-0 alleged to have been wrongfully recovered from him by the defendant as assessment on lands Survey Numbers 283 and 385 in village of Bagni. He also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from recovering assessment in future. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's ancestors had conferred upon his ancestors the 'Inam and Mirasi' rights in those lands and that by virtue of that grant the defendant was precluded from recovering from him any assessment.2. The matter arose in the year 1908 owing to the extension of the Survey Settlement to the village of Bagni. It is not disputed that up to that date no assessment had been paid on the lands in suit. The defendant is the Saranjamdar of the Bagni village and as such is the alience of the revenue of the entire village. He contended, in the first instance, that the alleged grant is not made out, and, secondly, that he was not bound by any grant made by his prede...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharam Govind Page Vs. Trimbakrao Ramchandrarao Mantri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom303; (1921)ILR45Bom694
Crump, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff sought to recover Rs. 141-13-0 alleged to have been wrongfully recovered from him by the defendant as assessment on lands Survey Numbers 288 and 885 in the village of Bagni. He also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendant from recovering assessment in future. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's ancestors had conferred upon his ancestors the 'Inam and Mirasi' rights in those lands and that by virtue of that grant the defendant was precluded from recovering from him any assessment.2. The matter arose in the year 1908 owing to the extension of the survey settlement to the village of Bagni. It is not disputed that up to that date no assessment had been paid on the lands in suit. The defendant is the Saranjamdar of the Bagni village and as such is the alienee of the revenue of the entire village. He contended, in the first instance, that the alleged grant is not made out, and, secondly, that he was not bound by any grant made by his p...
Tag this Judgment!Khusalbhai Paragji Desai Vs. Dulabhbhai Paragji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom281; (1921)23BOMLR304; 61Ind.Cas.411
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that plaintiff No. 1 had a right to receive a certain proportion of a Desaigiri allowance, which stands in the name of the defendants, and which the defendants have been receiving. The plaintiff No. 1 claims the allowance under the will of one Bhaidas, dated the 28th September 1872, in favour of plaintiff No. 1's deceased son Khandubhai whose heir is plaintiff No. 1. The defendants denied the will, and also urged that the allowance was inalienable. They further set up an alleged custom under which the Desaigiri Hak in question could not go out of the family.2. The trial Court held that the will was proved; that the cash allowance was alienable; and that the alleged custom was not proved. It accordingly gave plaintiff No. 1 a declaration that he had a right hereditarily to receive the amount he claimed.3. On appeal, this decree was confirmed by the District Judge. The defendants now come in second appeal, and two points only have been ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanath Mulchand Vs. Gajanan Pandurang Limaye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom301; (1921)23BOMLR306
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a decree was passed on an award which the plaintiffs sought to execute. The trial Court directed execution to proceed. In appeal this order was set aside, and the application for execution was rejected with costs on the ground that there was no real point of difference between the parties on which a reference to arbitration could be made. The learned appellate Judge said :The case having come before me in appeal I am in a position to treat this decree passed without jurisdiction as inoperative and to exercise the inherent powers of the Court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code and Co refuse to the decree-holder the relief which he is seeking by way of execution. Had the ease come to my notice in any other way I would have made a reference to their Lordships under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the decree passed upon the so-called award on the authority of Velchand v. Liston : AIR1914Bom123(2) .2. In Ramchandra v. ...
Tag this Judgment!Pranjiwandas Parshottamdas Vs. Bai Mani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom291; (1921)23BOMLR294; 61Ind.Cas.406
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, an agriculturist, sued, under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agricultrists' Relief Act, to redeem and recover possession of the plaint lands from the defendants, alleging that he derived title from one Vallavram Devram who mortgaged the plaint lands with possession to Desai Vallavram Dullabhram on the 1st September 1826 for Rs. 51. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed in the trial Court on the ground that his right to redeem was barred by limitation. The plaintiff relied upon certain acknowledgments by the mortgagee of his liability to be redeemed which were made by him in 1865 and 1876 and by his widow in 1882. Both Courts have held Mackod that these are not acknowledgments within the meaning of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act. It is, therefore, necessary to consider what the acknowledgments relied upon by the plaintiff are.2. In 1865, the Government directed an inquiry with regard to the nature of inam lands with the result that Sanads ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »