Mumbai Court September 1920 Judgments
Rakhmabai Vs. Ramchandra Vasudev Rotithor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom470; (1921)23BOMLR301; 61Ind.Cas.114
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think the decree of the lower appellate Court was correct. With regard to the suit property a decree, was passed on the 29th of May 1896 which directed that Yeshwant a nephew of Atmaram the husband of plaintiff No. 1 should take one-third portion by partition. Execution proceedings were taken, but for some reason or other were not prosecuted, with the result that the whole of the Survey Number remained in the possession of Atmaram's widow till October 1911, when the defendants who were the heirs of Yeshwant got into possession; Now it may be that at that time execution of the decree was barred. But if without exocution the successors of Yeshwant got into possession, then their possession would be ascribed to the decree, and the present plaintiff could only turn them out if she could show that she had acquired a good title against the world before they got into possession. She might show that she had acquired a title by adverse possession. But she could on...
Tag this Judgment!Pranjivandas Parshottamdas Vs. Bai Mani Window of Uttamram Vithaldas a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom934
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, an agriculturist, sued under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Belief Act, to redeem and recover possession of the plaint lands from the defendants, alleging that he derived title from one Yallavram Devram who mortgaged the plaint lands with possession to Desai Dayaram 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 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 were issue...
Tag this Judgment!Esmail Allarakhia Vs. Dattatraya Ramchandra Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom30; (1921)23BOMLR291; 61Ind.Cas.403
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The facts which led up to the order now under appeal are somewhat complicated. The suit property belonged to one Ballabhai who died leaving as his heirs his widow Banubai, three sons and three daughters. Thereafter two sons and one daughter died. Banubai for herself and as guardian of her surviving children who were minors sold the property to one Punamchand Deeva and he in his turn sold it to one Mahomed Rahimtulla Jusub.2. Banemiya son and Putlabai daughter of Ballabhai filed Suit No. 57 of 1914 in the Thana Court to set aside the sale by their mother so far as their shares were concerned. An appeal decree in that suit was passed by the High Court on the 26th February 1918 whereby it was decreed that the plaintiffs should, on paying into Court a certain sum within six months, take into possession a 10/16th share of the property by partition. In default of payment the suit would be dismissed. On 31st July 1915, Banemiya had mortgaged his share to one Dattat...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Narandas Karsandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR353; 61Ind.Cas.49
Shah, J.1. Two points have been argued in support of this application. The first is that 'sweet and cocoanut oil' is not 'oil' within the meaning of the expression 'oil (other sorts)' used in Schedule M, Part II, of the City of Bombay Municipal Act as now amended. Secondly, it is urged that the storing of the oil in question without a license cannot be said to be contrary to the provision of the Act, as the license was wrongly refused by the Commissioner.2. As regards the first point it may be mentioned that the oils Stored in this case are vegetable oils: and it may be assumed that the flashing point ' of these oils is much higher than that mentioned in the definition of ' petroleum ' in the Indian Petroleum Act. The argument is that the expression 'oil (other sorts) ' means only those oils which are not less dangerous than ' dangerous petroleum ' as defined in the Indian Petroleum Act. The argument is based upon the fact that the expression is used after ' petroleum ' and ' dangerous...
Tag this Judgment!Ravjibhai Kashibhai Vs. Dahyabhai Zaverbhai Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom32; (1920)22BOMLR1454
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Following the case of Walji Mathuradas v. Ebji Umersey I.L.R. (1904) Bom. 285 : 6 Bom. L.R. 1132 we think that we must hold that there is no appeal in this case as it has not been shown that the award is illegal ab initio. What the petitioner complains of is that the Court pronounced judgment according to the award on the day the award was filed, and did not wait the ten days prescribed by Schedule II, paragraph 16 (1), of the Code and Article 158 of Schedule I of the Indian Limitation Act. No doubt it was held in Najm-ud-din Ahmad v. Albert Puech I.L.R. (1907) All. 584 that where a judgment is pronounced before the time has expired an appeal will lie. With all due respect I cannot see how an appeal will lie in such a case, because it is not suggested that there is any defect in the award. It may be that the award is a nullity or illegal ab initio. Then as laid down by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in the case I have referred to there may be an appeal. But where the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas Maganlal Vs. Kaikhushru Adarji Antia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR287; 61Ind.Cas.278
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner in this case is the owner of a house at Kalbadevi. The opponent is a tenant. Before the Bombay Rent Act came into force the petitioner gave notice to the opponent to go out of the premises rented by him as the front portion of the petitioner's premises had been notified by the Municipality for the purposes of a set-back. On the 16th February 1918, the petitioner got a decree directing possession of the shop to be given to the petitioner before the 31st July 1918. Meanwhile, the Bombay Rent Act came into force and the opponent applied to the Court to suspend the execution of the decree which had been passed. An order was made on the 23rd August 1918:For the present I allow defendant ten months' time from today to vacate, reserving liberty to both parties to apply on expiration of the ten months. No execution without notice. I do not think the premises in suit come within the set-back and his intention to use it for himself seems only an excuse ...
Tag this Judgment!Shidhraj Bhojraj Desai Vs. Dari Santaram Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom371; (1921)23BOMLR272; 61Ind.Cas.464
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the land comprised in Survey No. 143 situated in Mangsuli in Athni Taluka. He obtained a decree in the trial Court, which has been confirmed in first appeal. The only questions which were argued in first appeal were whether the Rajinama was admissible in evidence for want of registration and whether it extinguished the rights of the plaintiff's family in the suit land. The appeal Court found both these questions in the negative. This village is an alienated village and unsurveyed, and so it does not appear that the persons in actual occupation of the land paying rent to the Inamdar could be said to be in the same position as occupants in unalienated villages. The definition of 'holder' in Section 3(11) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, is not a satisfactory one for it includes 'superior holders' and ' inferior holders ' as defined in Section 3(13) and 3(14) of that Act. Therefore where the word 'holder' of alienated...
Tag this Judgment!Aditram Girdhar Vs. Bapulal Becharlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom143; (1921)23BOMLR276; 61Ind.Cas.455
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The applicants propounded the last will of one Jaiti who died at Kapadvanj on the 11th April 1918. It is admitted that the deceased executed a will on the 25th April 1916. That will was registered and was left for some time with the applicants, but about one and a half months before the deceased died she took back the will from the applicants, and after her death the will was not to be found. The first opponent endeavoured to set up another will purporting to have been executed by Jaiti. The Court has found against that will and no appeal has been filed against that decision. The Court also came to the conclusion that the will of the 25th April 1916 must have been revoked as it could not be found. The latest English case on the presumption that will arise when a person dies who is known to have executed a will, and to have had that will in his possession, and the will is not found after his death, is Allan v. Morrison (1900) A.C. 604. The head-note says: ' W...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanji Jairam Mali Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom381; (1921)23BOMLR279; 61Ind.Cas.347
Crump, J.1. In 1903, the plaintiff applied to the Collector for a grant of the occupancy of Survey Nos. 46 and 47 in the village of Ajanti. The occupancy was accordingly granted to him on payment of Rs. 99, being three times the annual assessment. The grant was made on what is popularly known as 'the restricted tenure ', certain conditions being annexed prohibiting, alienation as permitted by Section 68 of the Bombay Land Revenne Code. The relevant words of the Kabulayat are as followsNeither I, nor my heirs nor any agent acting on my behalf will create any encumbrance on the land or any portion of it by way of lease, mortgage or sale or in any other manner.2. On August 9th, 1915, the plaintiff made an application to the District Deputy Collector in which he stated that the two lands were taken up jointly by himself and defendant No. 2, and prayed that Survey No. 46 might be transferred to the came of defendant No. 2. On August 21, 1915, the statement of defendant No. 2 was recorded by...
Tag this Judgment!Aditram Girdhar and anr. Vs. Bapulal Becharlal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom906
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The applicants propounded the last will of one Jaiti who died at Kapadwanj on the 11th April 1918. It is admitted that the deceased executed, a will on the 25th April 1916. That will was registered and was left for some time with the applicants, but about one and a half months before the deceased died she took back the will from the applicants, and after her death the will was not to be found. The 1st opponent, endeavoured to set up another will purporting to have been executed by Jaiti. The Trial Court has found against that will and no appeal has been filed against that decision. The Court also came to the conclusion that the will of the 25th April 1916 must have been revoked as it could not be found. The latest English case on the presumption that will arise when a person dies who is known to have executed a will, and to have had that will in his possession, and the will is not found after his death, is Allan v. Morrison [1900] A.C. 604. The head note say...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »