Mumbai Court January 1921 Judgments
Vithoba Mahipati Dhabade and ors. Vs. Balkrishna Sakharam Kulkarni Min ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom437; (1921)ILR45Bom1206
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 625-9-0 from the property of the deceased father of the defendant, and from the defendant personally, alleging that the defendant's father Sakharam mortgaged to the plaintiffs' deceased father Mahipati Kulkarni-Watan land for Rs. 460 on the 21st August 1897; and that the plaintiffs' father, and after his death the plaintiffs, had been in possession of the land until 1914 when the defendant dispossessed them through the Revenue authorities under the Watan Act.2. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that it was barred by limitation. But it is admitted now that the trial Judge had not the materials before him for ascertaining the real date of the death of the defendant's father. He considered that the defendant's father had died in 1908, and as the suit was filed in 1917, it was clearly barred. In appeal it was admitted after the production of further evidence that the defendant's father died on the 24th Feb...
Tag this Judgment!Ghelabhai Punsi Vs. the East Indian Railway Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom443; (1921)23BOMLR525
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case consigned 250 bags of rice to Bombay from Dubrajpore, which were delivered to the first defendant railway company at Dubrajpore to be delivered by the second defendant railway company at Wadi Bunder, Bombay. The plaintiff only received delivery in Bombay of 248 bags, and in consequence demanded from the railway company either the two bags of rice or their value.2. The case came on for hearing before the learned Third Judge of the Small Causes Court, when it was stated by the second defendant that the goods were lost on the railway line, that the defendants had taken the proper amount of care imposed by law on them, and that the loss was due to causes beyond their control. A commission was directed to issue to the District Court at Birbhum to examine evidence, but that evidence was confined to the issue whether the Risk Note was signed by the plaintiff consignor. The learned Judge held that as the plaintiff had signed the Risk Note ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Shirinbai Vs. Ratanbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR618
Viscount Cave, J.1. This appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay raises questions as to the construction of the will of one Bomanji Kaikhushro Modi, who died in or about the year 1875. The parties are Parsis to whom the Indian Succession Act No. X of 1865 applies.2. The testator made his will, dated the 9th January, 1872. By Clause 8, after reciting that he had two sons, named Nusserwanji and Sorabji, and a wife named Kuvarbai, he appointed his wife as his executrix with full powers of management. By Clause 4, after referring to his immovable and movable property of all kinds, he proceeded:Of all that I duly make my wife, the said Kuvarbai, ' Malek Muktiyar'(absoluto owner during her life, just as I am the owner, and during her life none of my other heirs, representatives or relatives or kinsmen can question her ia regard to any matter whatevor.3. Clause 7 was as follows:-7. Agreeably to what is written above, my wife shall, during her lifetime, duly carry on vahivat (i.e., ...
Tag this Judgment!Adit Narayan Singh Vs. Mahabir Prasad Tiwari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR692
Edge, J.1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen Was brought on the 22nd April, 1911, by Mahabir Prasad Tiwari, who is the respondent to this appeal, against Adit Narayan Singh, who is the appellant here, and others, who were not necessary parties. Is a suit for the possession of Mauza Bariapur, in the District of Patna. The Mauza is in the possession of the defendant-appellant under a usufructuary mortgage for Rs. 200 which was granted to him on the 1st September, 1902, by Monakka Kuar, the widow of Dhanukdhari, who was a separated Hindu of a family governed by the law of the Mitak-sharaandat his death was proprietor of the Mauza. He died about 1866 without issue. His widow, Monakka Kuar, died on the 13th September, 1902. She had power as a Hindu widow to grant the usufructuary mortgage. The heir of Dhanukdhari at his death or his successor-in-title was when this suit was brought entitled to possession of the Mauza on payment to the defendant-appellant of the Rs. 200 mortgage money...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jagannth Vasudeo Pandit (Party No. 3)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR189
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Section 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act X of 1876, under which the case was referred for the decision of the High Court, especially provides that the costs (if any) consequent on any such reference should be dealt with as the High Court in each case directs. That appears to me to take the question of how the costs are to be dealt with in each case outside any general rules which may have been provided with regard to the dealing with costs or taxation of costs.2. It has been argued that as this was an appellate side matter, the costs should be taxed under Section 7 of the Legal Practitioners' Act I of 1846, which would only give the winning party one-fourth of the 'costs which would have been incurred if this matter had been a regular suit decided on its merits. Even then, it is not quite clear whether this case could come within the words of Section 7 of Act I of 1846. Certainly that section was not intended to provide for references of a peculiar ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shri Jagannath Wasudev Pandit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom1177
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Section 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act X of 1876, under which the case was referred for the decision of the High Court, especially provides that the costs (if any) consequent on any such reference should be dealt with as the High Court in each case directs. That appears to me to take the question of how the costs are to be dealt with in each case outside any general rules which, may have been provided with regard to the dealing with costs or taxation of costs.2. It has been argued that as this was an Appellate Side matter, the costs should be taxed under Section 7 of the Legal Practitioners' Act I of 1846, which would only give the winning party one-fourth of the costs which would have been incurred if this matter had been a regular suit decided on its merits. Even then, it is not quite clear whether this case could come within the words of Section 7 of Act I of 1846. Certainly that section was not intended to provide for references of a peculiar ...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman and Two ors. Sons and Hairs of the Deceased Upendra Santappa Sh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1921
Reported in: (1921)ILR45Bom1181
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff and defendant were partners. The partnership was dissolved by agreement, and it was arranged that the defendant should hand over to the plaintiff all the account books and papers in connection with the partnership. The plaintiff was to examine the said accounts and papers, and if he found that any balance was outstanding against the defendant, and if two persons Murari Grovind and Padmanabh Govind decided as Panchas that that balance should be paid by the defendant, the plaintiff should recover the said amount. In spite of this agreement the plaintiff filed a suit, and thereafter the parties informed the Court that they intended to carry out their agreement and to abide by the decision of Murari and Padmanabh. The suit was, therefore, stayed under Section 18 of the second schedule of the Code. Then it appears that difficulties arose. One arbitrator Padmanabh sent a letter saying that if four months' time was allowed he would dispose of the matt...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Upendra Shanbhog Vs. Manjunath Damodar Prabhu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom458; 64Ind.Cas.289
1. The plaintiff and defendant were partners. The partnership was dissolved by agreement, and it was arranged that the defendant should hand over to the plaintiff all the account books and papers in connection with the partnership. The plaintiff wan to examine the said amounts and papers, and if he found that any balance was outstanding against the defendant, and if two persons, Murari Govind and Padmanabh Govind, decided as Panahas that that balance should be paid by the defendant, the plaintiff should recover the said amount. In spite of this agreement the plaintiff filed a suit, and thereafter the parties informed the Court that they intended to carry out their agreement and to abide by the decision of Murari and Padmanabh, The suit was, therefore, stayed under paragraph 18 of the Second Schedule of the Code of Civil Procedure. Then it appears that difficulties arose. One arbitrator, Padmanabh, sent a letter saying that if four months' time was allowed he would dispose of the matter...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Jagannath Vasudeo Pandit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom71; 61Ind.Cas.271
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. Section 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act X of 1876, under which the case was referred for the decision of the High Court, especially provides that the costs (if any) consequent on any such reference should be dealt with as the High Court in each case directs. That appears to me to take the question of how the costs are to be dealt with in each case outside any general rules which may have been provided with regard to the dealing with costs or taxation of costs.2. It has been argued that as this was an Appellate Side matter, the costs should be taxed under Section 7 of the Legal Practitioners Act, I of 1846, which would only give the winning party one-fourth of the cost which would have been incurred if this matter had been a regular suit decided on its merits. Even, then, it is not quite clear whether this case could come within the words of Section 7 of Act I of 1846, Certainly, that section was not intended to provide for references of a peculiar natur...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Ramnarayan Vs. Shankar Hirachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom401; (1921)23BOMLR506
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain specific performance of a contract of sale of the suit properties consisting of two agricultural lands and a house.2. It is admitted that there were dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant of which- an account was taken in 1916 when it was found that over Rs. 7,000 were due by the defendant to the plaintiff, and it is alleged by the plaintiff that in satisfaction of that claim the defendant agreed to transfer to him two lands Survey Nos. 160 and 74 and a house, called the Sonarwala house. The plaintiff also alleges that he was put into possession of the two pieces of land and that afterwards it was agreed that instead of the Sonarwala house the defendant should convey to the plaintiff what was called the Dukanwala house, and as a matter of fact the defendant executed a sale-deed of the Dukanwala house to the plaintiff on the 14th of July 1916, but unfortunately that deed has not been registered. It is also in evidence th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »