Mumbai Court September 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.
Shidharaj Bhojraj Desai Vs. Dari BIn Santram Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom898
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(II) 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 l...
Vaman Vithal Kulkarni Vs. Venkaji Khando Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom55; (1921)23BOMLR269; 61Ind.Cas.460
Shah, J.1. The only question in this appeal relates to the share of defendant No. 1, who is said to have lost all rights in his natural family on account of his adoption by Godubai. The facts about that adoption are that one Khando died in 1860 leaving two widows Kashibai and Godubai and a lady named Ahilyabai, the widow of a predeceased nephew. Kashibai died in the year 1862. With the consent of Godubai Ahilyabai adopted one Gopal in 1864. After the adoption of Gopal, Godubai is said to have adopted one Ramchandra in 1867; and after the death of Ramohandra she is said to have adopted defendant No. 1 in 1884. The validity of the adoption of Gopal by Ahilyabai is not questioned before us. But it is argued that after the adoption of Gopal by Aliilyabai ' Godubai's right to adopt did not come to an end, that she in fact adopted defendant No. 1 and that the adoption is valid. It seems to us clear, however, that, when with the consent of Godubai, Gopal was adopted by Ahilyabai, the whole pr...
Gangadhar Manika Vs. Balkrishna Soiroba Kasbekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom404; (1921)23BOMLR263; 61Ind.Cas.448
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In Civil Suit No. 2 of 1901, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Karwar, a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff directing him to get possession of the suit lands from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and coats, and plaintiff was to recover from the 1st defendant the amount of the value to be ascertained in execution for 33 Khandies of paddy at the rate then prevailing in respect of the three years previous to the date of suit, which remained after deducting the cash amounts paid to Government for the said land by him for the said years, and plaintiff was to recover from the 1st defendant the produce from the date of suit, viz., from 20th of December 1900, upto realization of possession, or it the possession was not obtained early, plaintiff was to recover the produce of three years from the date of the decree. Defendant No. 2 was liable to pay the plaintiff the rent and produce from July 1900. The income from the date of suit was to be ascerta...
Bhavan Morar Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom167; (1921)23BOMLR259; 61Ind.Cas.267
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff was the grandson of one Vallabh Pema who admittedly at one time held the suit lands and was excused from paying revenue to the Government owing to his rendering service as Patil. Exhibit 46 is the register of the Pateli Tharav with respect to the land in suit. That recites ' the land was continued as pasaita land from the time of the late Government. It was entered as chakariat at the time of the settlement. At present order dated the 21st of January 1868 of the Collector requiring it to be entered as Pateli having been received, it is so entered. Taking that into consideration and entering one time the assessment it has been entered for maintenance of inactive sitting partners.' Then there is the Land Alienation Register for 1880-87 which clearly shows that the land revenue was alienated in favour of Vallabh Pema under the class of alienations to village servants and alienations were continued so long as services were rendered to Government. I...
Vyankat Awachit Patil Vs. Onkar Nathu Chawdhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom434; (1921)23BOMLR250; 61Ind.Cas.276
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover as owner possession of the suit property. He claimed as the adopted son of one Nathu who died in 1902 leaving two widows, Anandi and Vari. Anandi purported to adopt the plaintiff in 1903. At that time he was a minor, not coming of age until 1914. In 1910, Anandi as his guardian filed a suit against the present 2nd defendant, the junior widow, and other persons in possession of some of Nathu's property to recover possession. In that suit the plaintiff's adoption was disputed, But it was held by the Second Class Subordinate Judge, in whose Court the suit was instituted, that the plaintiff was the adopted son of Nathu and that judgment was affirmed on appeal. The suit came up in Second Appeal to the High Court and the appeal was dismissed. The plaintiff has now filed this suit to recover possession of another portion of family property, and in the first place it was argued that the suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2, as the sub...
Balwant Daso Betgiri Vs. Umabai Shankarrao Godbole
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR254; 61Ind.Cas.287
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In a Suit No. 221 of 1891 filed in the Belgaum Court the 1st defendant in this suit obtained a decree against one Khanderao Babasaheb Desai. That decree was made payable by instalments and it was declared in the decree that the decretal amount was charged on certain lands of the judgment-debtor. The decree was not registered. In 1896, the judgment-debtor sold three of the lands mentioned in the previous suit to the present plaintiffs and put them in possession. In 1912, the 1st defendant filed a Darkhast in execution of the decree of 1891, and under that Darkhast certain lands were put up to sale including the lands which had been sold to the plaintiffs in 1896. The execution proceedings were transferred to the Collector of Belgaum and that Officer ordered the Mamlatdar of Gokak to sell the lauds in accordance with the Court's order. It appears that the plaintiffs' father raised objections to the sale and filed an application that the property other than the...
Balvant Daso Batgiri and anr. Vs. Umabai Husband Shankarro Godbole and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom812
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In a Suit No. 221 of 1891 filed in the Belgaum Court the 1st defendant in this suit obtained a decree against one Khanderao Babasaheb Desai. That decree was made payable by instalments and it was declared in the decree that the decretal amount was charged on certain lands of the judgment-debtor. The decree was not registered. In 1896, the judgment-debtor sold three of the lands mentioned in the previous suit to the present plaintiffs' father and put him in possession. In 1912 the 1st defendant filed a Darkhast in execution of the decree of 1891, and under that Darkhast certain lands were put up to sale including the lands which had been sold to the plaintiffs' father in 1896. The execution proceedings were transferred to the Collector of Belgaum and that Officer ordered the Mamlatdar of Gokak to sell the lands in accordance with the Court's order. It appears that the plaintiffs', father raised objections to the sale and filed an application that the property...
The Municipality of Sholapur Vs. Abdul Wahab Shaik Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom439; (1921)23BOMLR244; 61Ind.Cas.428
Shah, J.1. The question of law that has been argued in this appeal is whether the defendant, the City Municipality, of Sholapur, had the right to cancel the permission granted to the plaintiff to build on a certain plot of open ground near his house. The right to cancel the permission is claimed on the ground, first, that the sale of the plot in question is not evidenced by a writing signed and sealed as required by Section 40, Sub-section (6), of the Bombay District Municipal Act (III of 1901), and, secondly, that the plaintiff purchased the said plot subject to the condition that it was to be used for putting flower pots &c.; &c.;2. The facts necessary to appreciate the argument are these : In January 1913 the plaintiff applied to the Municipality for the purchase of the plot of ground in question. In the application he stated as follows :-The place... may be given to me for the purpose of placing flower pots &c.; &c.;' His neighbour Imam Mahomed joined in applying for the remaining ...
Bai Monghibai Vs. Bai Rambhalaxmi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1286
Marten, J.1. In this Testamentary suit the parties have agreed on certain terms, and, as frequently happens in testamentary suits, some of the terms are such as possibly do not fall strictly within the Testamentary jurisdiction. Some undoubtedly do; but it is possible that as regards some of the others they could more strictly be carried out in the exercise of the Original jurisdiction of this Court. The difference between these two jurisdictions corresponds very much to what would be the difference in England between the Probate jurisdiction awl the Chancery jurisdiction.2. Quite recently in this Court in the case of In re Samuel Testamentary Suit No, 3 of 1920 (Unrep.), a similar point arose; but there the terms counsel agreed on were even more of what I may call a Chancery nature. In effect the parties there wanted certain directions given to the administrator as to how the estate should be dealt with and how it was to be divided between certain beneficiaries. When the order in that...
Girimallappa Channappa Somsagar Vs. Kenchava San-yellappa Hosmani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom270; (1921)23BOMLR213; 61Ind.Cas.294
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit for possession of property which belonged to one Ramanna deceased. He left an adopted son Parappa and a widow Chanbasava. Parappa died a month after Ramanna and thereafter Chanbasava became entitled to the suit property as her son's heiress. Ramanna's nephew Hanmappa claimed to be his adopted son, but the Court decided against him, whereupon he murdered Chanbasava. He was convicted and sentenced to transportation for life. The plaintiff is the son of Ramanna's sister Basava, while the t defendants are the sisters of Ramanna's brother Vadakappa. On the death of Chanbasava, Hanmappa was admittedly the nearest heir. Unless the fact that he murdered Chanbasava in some way affects his rights to inherit, the plaintiff's suit must fail.2. But if he is disqualified, the question arises, whether he should be treated as non-existent, or whether he should be treated as a person deceased who formed the stock for a fresh line of descent. If the latter, aga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »