Mumbai Court January 1921 Judgments
Gurushantappa Gurappa Khobbannavar Vs. Mallava Sangappa Chavadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom27; (1921)23BOMLR523
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for rent under a rent-note dated the 7th of September 1860, and for damages for breach of one of the terms of the rent-note, whereby the tenant was prohibited from letting the property to others under an agreement to pay rent. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the representatives of the tenant and admittedly they have sub-let the premises. The trial Court considered that the plaintiff had not proved that he was entitled to anything more than nominal damages and awarded one pie, but omitted to consider the plaintiff's claim for rent. In appeal Rs. 6O for three years' rent were allowed and an additional sum of Rs. 40 per year was allowed as damages for three years, on the ground that there was a clear breach of the covenant, and that as the tenant was making a profit of Rs. 80 a year, it was clear that the landlord was in equity entitled to damages. That, I am afraid, is not he correct principle on which a claim for damages can be assessed. The...
Tag this Judgment!Gangabai Joshi Vs. Hari Ganesh Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom446; (1921)23BOMLR500
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the plaint property was of her full and absolute ownership, and that the defendant had no sort of interest in it, and for an injunction restraining him from interfering with her possession or entering upon the property. The facts are not in dispute. The suit property originally belonged to the plaintiff's father who devised it by will dated the 5th of December 1892 to the plaintiff for life and after her death to her son Trimbak Ganesh, and any other sons that might be subsequently born to her. The testator died twenty-six or twenty-seven years ago, and Trimbak who was then alive took a vested remainder in the suit property. When he died his mother, the plaintiff, became his heiress. Than the plaintiff determined to adopt the defendant who was a major. Before the adoption the defendant executed an agreement in favour of the plaintiff to the effect that in the event of his being adopted he would not claim any right to...
Tag this Judgment!Madhav Balkrishna Deshpande Vs. Appaji Venkatesh Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom398; (1921)23BOMLR203
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this Suit No. 142 of in order to get possession of the land which had been sold him for Rs. 200 by the defendants. The defendants contended they were mortgagors and not vendors. Eventually the suit in a compromise decree by which the first defendant was to to the plaintiff for his right as mortgagee the sum of Rs. within six months from the date of the decree, namly, ft January 1917 with interest at eight annas per cent, per aontr defendant No. 1 failed to pay the amount and inter-ad to ' plaintiff, the defendants' right to redeem the tnorer to cease, and in that case the plaintiff was to get joss of the land in suit by right of ownership. As tlo amc stipulated was not paid the plaintiff applied to jave tfie an Appli decree made absolute. The defendant made cation that he was au agriculturist and annual of Rs. 50 should be granted. The learned trial Judje thought that there was no authority for holding that a decrfe, if it was based on a ...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State for India Vs. Dilsizian Freres
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom447; (1921)23BOMLR495
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, the Secretary of State for India in Council filed this suit in the Resident's Court at Aden against the three defendants to recover Rs. 45,600 alleged to be due on a bond signed by the defendants, Exhibit P 1, on the 15th of March 1918. The defendants were anxwus to ex! Aden fifty bales of piece-goods to Djibouti on the A The Government were anxious that goods exported' should not be diverted from the port of destination anl into enemies' territory. Therefore they exacted exporters, the condition of the bond being that if th| MacUod, C.J. ahoQid produce a certificate from a proper and respom at the port of destination as to the arrival at such vessel and as to the due landing of the goods is qtit as to such goods not having been there reshipped or tti to some other port, or should give, in default of such good and sufficient reason to the satisfaction of the in whose name the bond was taken for the non-prod' such certificate, then the bond sho...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Tukaram Dharne Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom367; (1921)23BOMLR492
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs prayed for a decree for a declaration of their absolute right over the respective lands, as stated in the schedule to the plaint, to the exclusion of the defendants other than defendant No. 1, that the orders of the defendant No. 1's officers were not binding on the plaintiffs, and that the second defendant was entitled only to receive the assessment from the plaintiffs in respect of the said lands. The plaintiff claimed to be occupants. But in 1914, the Collector, at the instance of the second defendant, made an order that the lands should be turned and restored to him as the holder of a Sanad granted to his predecessors in 1841. Issues were raised, but the suit was dismissed by the learned District, Judge on his finding on issue No. 1 : Is the suit barred under Section 4(a) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act? No doubt the plaintiffs would have to get the Collector's order set aside in order to get possession of the lands which they claim...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Ramchandra Joshi Vs. Ganesh Krishna Sathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom449; (1921)23BOMLR488
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued on a promissory-note dated the 21st May 1919 for Rs. 600, and for Rs. 3 as interest and for costs and further interest. The defendant admitted having passed the promissory-note, but contended that it was passed in consideration of a part of the price of certain lands sold by the plaintiff to one Narayan Vithal on whose behalf the defendant had taken a havala for Rs. 600, and that the defendant was ready to pay the same if the plaintiff discharged the burden resting on the property sold. An issue was raised whether the defendant was entitled to insist that before the amount of the promissory-note could be recovered the plaintiff should discharge the incumbrance on the property sold by him to a third party.2. The trial Judge held that the defendant's contention was obviously unsustainable, and passed a decree for the amount claimed.3. In first appeal this decision was confirmed, and the question V before us is whether the defendant having pa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›