Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR777
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Gema was the owner of certain property which he had mortgaged to one Babashahi. Gema died leaving three sons, Dabhai, Gokul and Hemta. Dabhai died leaving two sons, Dhula and Desai. One Dhula Rama paid off the two mortgages created by Gema, and in consideration of this Gokul and Hemta sold to him a certain plot of land which in these proceedings is referred to as lot A. That was in 1908. Then in 1914 the sons of Dabhai filed Suit No. 239 of 1914 to recover by partition separate or joint possession of one-third share in that property A. Subsequently Dhula Rama filed Suit No. 383 of 1914 to recover his share of the whole of the family property by partition. It will not be necessary to refer to the course which the trial of these two suits took. But on the 4th August 1919 judgment was passed by the District Judge in two first appeals from the judgments of the lower Court in these two original 'suits. The result of that judgment was- that Suit No. 239 of 191...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR606
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover on a Ruzukhata dated 29th June 1917. There had been certain dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant resulting in the defendant incurring debts to the plaintiff on the 3rd July 1914, 27th July 1914 and the 3rd September 1914. The account was made up on the 29th June 1917, and after taking into consideration payments made and interest charged, the defendant signed the acknowledgment sued on for Rs. 90. The suit was brought to recover Rs. 90 together with interest at twelve per cent, from the 29th June 1917. At the hearing the defendant admitted that he had passed the Khata sued on and asked for instalments. The learned Judge held that no suit lay on a Ruzukhata following the decision in Shankar v. Mukta I.L.R (1898) Bom. 513 and accordingly the suit was dismissed with costs. In the case of Shankar v. Mukta the following questions were referred by the Subordinate 'It Judge to the High Court:-(1) Is the Ruzukhata sufficient...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR629
Viscount Finlay, J.1. The action to which this appeal relates was brought to enforce a mortgage upon laud. Its validity was challenged by the defendants on the ground that it had not been registered in accordance with the Indian Registration Act, 1877, and was, therefore, inoperative. A registration had been effected, but it was alleged for the defence that it was void, as no part of the property to which the mortgage related was situate within the district of the Sub-Registrar in whose office the mortgage was presented for registration.2. The High Court held, reversing the District Judge, that the mortgage was invalid, on the ground that it had not been duly registered.3. This appeal was brought by the representatives of the mortgagee, praying (I) that the mortgage should be put in force against the land; and (2), in the alternative, that under the head of General Relief judgment should be given against the defendants personally for payment of the amount of the debt.4. There was no ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR1060
Marten, J.1. This is a suit by the Advocate General ex-officio to establish certain charities in the community of the Dawoodi Borahs, who are Shiah Mahomedans of the Mustaalian Branch of the Ismaili sect. The principal defendant is defendant No. 3, His Holiness the Mullaji Saheb, who is the High Priest and Dai or head of the community. Defendants Nos, 1 and 2 merely claim to be his managers or agents, and are of minor importance in this suit.2. The charity is denied. The contest largely turns on the exceptional position and powers which are claimed for the Mullaji Saheb, and as to how far they can be recognised and enforced in a Court of law consistently with the general law of the land. This in its turn involves a close investigation of the religious tenets of the community.3. The suit relates to (a) a mosque building in Bohra Musjid street, (b) the tomb of Seth Chandabhoy Currimbhoy and the offerings placed there in a gulla or offertory box, (c) four immoveable properties purchased o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1921Bom338; 84Ind.Cas.759
Marten, J.1. This is a suit by the Advocate-General ex officio to establish certain charities in the community of the Dawoodi Borahs, who are Shiah Muhamadans of the Mustaalian Branch of the Ismaili sect. The principal defendant is defendant No. 3, His Holiness the Mullaji Saheb, who is the High Priest and Dai or head of the community. Defendants No. 1 and 2 merely claim to be his managers or agents and are of minor importance in this suit.2. The charity is denied. The contest largely turns on the, exceptional position, and powers which are claimed for the Mullaji Saheb, and as to how far they can be recognised and enforced in a Court of law consistently with the general law of the land. This in its turn involves, a close investigation of the religious tenets of the community.3. The suit relates to (a) a mosque building. In Bohra Musjid street, (b) the tomb of Seth Chandabhoy Currimbhoy and the offerings placed there in a gulla or offertory box, (c) four immoveable properties purchased...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1921Bom64; (1921)23BOMLR595
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff succeeded in the trial Court. In appeal the learned District Judge took the point that as the suit related to land within the meaning of Section 135 H of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the plaintiff was bound to annex a certified copy of the entry of the Record of Rights. He had not done so in the lower Court and the omission seems to have escaped the notice of the Judge. The District Judge, therefore, rejected the plaint.2. We think that was a wrong method of procedure. If the attention of the plaintiff had been drawn to the defect when the plaint was presented, and the omission to annex a certified copy of the entry in the Record of Rights pointed out, the defect could have been remedied. To dismiss the suit in first appeal owing to this defect appears to be wrong. The appellant ought to have been given an opportunity of annexing to the proceedings a certified copy of the entry of the Record of Rights. Therefore, on the plaintiff's doing so, t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)ILR45Bom1339
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff succeeded in the trial Court. In appeal the learned District Judge took the point that as the suit related to land within the meaning of Section 135(H) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, the plaintiff was bound to annex a certified copy of the entry of the Record of Rights. He had not done so in the lower Court and the omission seems to have escaped the notice of the Judge. The District Judge,, therefore, rejected the plaint.2. We think that was a wrong method of procedure. If the attention of the plaintiff had been drawn to the defect when the plaint was presented, and the omission to annex a certified copy of the entry in the Record of Rights pointed out, the defect could have been, remedied. To dismiss the suit in first appeal owing to this defect appears to be wrong. The appellant ought to have been given an opportunity of annexing to the proceedings a certified copy of the entry of the Record of Rights. Therefore on the plaintiff's doing so,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR745
Shah, J.1. This is an application for a review of our judgment delivered on the 9th January 1920 in First Appeal No. 57 of 1918. The application is based on the ground that a certified copy of the relevant extract from the record of rights was not produced with the plaint in the case as required by Section 135 H of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, that, therefore, the plaint should have been rejected, and that all the subsequent proceedings taken in the absence of such certified copy must be treated as having been taken without jurisdiction. It may be mentioned that in the trial Court apparently this omission was not noted until the arguments were heard. At that stage, time was allowed to the plaintiff to put in the necessary certified copy. It is not clear as to what happened after that; but for one reason or other no copy was put in, and the trial Court proceeded to decide the case. In the memorandum of appeal here no point with reference to the omission to file the certified copy was t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR636
Dunedin, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff and appellant, Habibur Rahman Chowdhury, claims a declaration that he is the legitimate son of the late Nawab of Bogra, who died intestate on the 2nd July, 1915. The suit is opposed by the late Nawab's grandson, who is the son of a legitimate daughter, and by two nephews, the sons of an elder brother. The plaintiff is admittedly the natural son of the lato Nawab, his mother having been a Jewess, Mozelle Cohen, who became a Mahomedan and cohabited with the Nawab. He was born in 1893. The Nawab had a daughter by the same lady in 1891. The Nawab's legitimate wife, the grandmother of the first defendant, died in 1890. The plaintiff based his claim on two grounds. Ha averred first that Mozelle was married to the Nawab. He further averred that on many occasions the Nawab had acknowledged him as his legitimate son. The defendants aver that no marriage ever took place. They also deny that any proper acknowledgment of legitimacy was made.2. The case went...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1921Bom284; (1921)23BOMLR593
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to redeem the suit property and recover possession alleging that ii was mortgaged with the defendant in 1874. The defendant resisted the claim for redemption, on the strength of a decree passed in Suit No. 480 of 1881, which was a suit by the mortgagor to redeem, in which the following decree was passed:-I he plaintiff should pay to the defendant Rs. 400 with interest at the rate of eight annas per cent, per mensem by annual instalments of Ha. 50 each from 31at March 1884. If the plaintiff were to pay more than Rs. 50 the defendant should not refuse to accept the same. In case the plaintiff fails to pay any instalment the defendant should take the land in his possession and receive the produce of the land in lieu of interest on the remaining amount and Government assessment; and on the plaintiff paying the principal amount at the end of any fasli year the land belonging to the plaintiff should be returned to him.2. This case belongs to tha...
Tag this Judgment!