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.
Parshotam Ganpat Gujar Vs. Venichand Ganpat Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom147(1); (1921)23BOMLR227; 61Ind.Cas.492
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, a posthumous son of one Ganapat Bhaichand, filed this suit through his next friend praying for a declaration that the defendant was not the adopted son of Ganapat and that his adoption was invalid as he was an orphan at the time of his adoption. Ganpat died in 1906 leaving his widow Mainabai pregnant. On the 12th October 1906, she adopted the defendant. In February 1907, the plaintiff was born. Mainabai died in 1908 leaving a will whereby she appointed one Vishnu Vinayak as manager during the plaintiff's minority. This suit was filed in 1913 by Vishnu Vinayak purporting to act as next friend of the minor plaintiff then aged six. If Vishnu's allegations are correct, proceedings of some sort had become necessary owing to the conduct of the defendant in interfering with the management of the estate, and the learned Subordinate Judge found that as a matter of fact, whoever was to blame, the estate had been mismanaged. The defendant claimed to mana...
Vasta Balwant Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom177; (1921)23BOMLR238; 61Ind.Cas.440
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued the Secretary of State for a declaration, an injunction, the refund of certain payments made and costs as stated in the plaint. He claims to be the owner of a certain gabhan in the village of Vadadla in the Broach District which he alleges came to him on partition of joint family property. He says that he built a house on the gabhan and that the said house is still in existence, but in 1912 some of his enemies made a false application to Government and there was a departmental inquiry and the District Deputy Collector held that the site belonged to Government and consequently the plaintiff was ordered to pay Rs. 3-14-8 as rent and local fund cess and Rs. 4 as fine, and was further ordered to pass a lease, and failing compliance the Government was to take possession of the site. Thereupon he made payments under protest, while appeals to the Collector and to the Commissioner and finally to the Government of Bombay were dismissed. He prayed, ...
Parshottam Ganpat Gujar Minor by His Next Friend Vishnu Vinayak Islamp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom754
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, a posthumous son of one Ganpat Bhaichand, filed this suit through his next friend praying for a declaration that the defendant was not the adopted son of Ganpat and that his adoption was invalid as he was an orphan at the time of his adoption. Ganpat died in 1906 leaving his widow Mainabai pregnant. On the 12th October 1906, she adopted the defendant. In February 1907, the plaintiff was born. Mainabai died in 1908 leaving a will whereby she appointed one Vishnu Vinayak as manager during the plaintiff's minority. This suit was filed in 1913 by Vishnu Vinayak purporting to act as next friend of the minor plaintiff then aged six. If Vishnu's allegations are correct, proceedings of some sort had become necessary owing to the conduct of the defendant in interfering with the management of the estate, and the learned Subordinate Judge found that as a matter of fact, whoever was to blame, the estate had been mismanaged. The defendant claimed to manage...
Bhagwandas Maganlal Vs. Kaikhushroo Adarji Antia and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1920
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom928
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 g& 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 6th 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 t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›