Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1922)24BOMLR590
Dunedin, J.1. This is a suit by a mortgagee, Musammat Sukhi, to sell a property called Rasulpur. The facts out of which the suit arises are as follows.2. Nand Ram and others, the owners of the property in question and of other properties, executed on January 3, 1874, and June 10, 1875, two simple mortgages in favour of Kirpa Ram, now deceased, the husband of the plaintiff. Subsequently, on January 15, 1883, they executed another mortgage of the property in question alone by way of conditional sale in favour of the first .respondent, Ghulam Safdar Khan and another person whom the second and third respondents now represent. These mortgages were all duly registered. In 1886, Kirpa Ram, the mortgagee raised an action for payment and sale, but he omitted to implead the holders of the mortgage of 1888. In that suit he obtained a decree for sale. The property was sold and Kirpa Ram himself purchased at the judicial sale. Kirpa Ram died leaving a will dated in 1895 in favour of his widow, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR802
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by the defendant in ejectment proceedings in the Small Causes Court No. 2662 of 1921 asking us to interfere under our revisional jurisdiction as defined by Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The plaintiffs sought to eject the defendant from a shop in the Mulji Jetha Cloth Market on the ground that after the fire last monsoon, defendant having been burnt out of his shop asked the plaintiffs to allow him to use a part of their shop to continue his business. The plaintiffs gave him permission, thinking that the defendant's goods would be sold off in a short time. The plaintiffs having themselves been given notice wished to get possession from the defendant. The defence raised in the Court of Small Causes was that the defendant was a partner of the plaintiffs. It was suggested that the Small Causes Court had no jurisdiction to enter into that question. That must be a question material for the determination of the suit, whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR796
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for possession of a certain mortgaged property, and for a declaration that the mortgages were nominal and passed without consideration; if they were passed for consideration, then for an account of what might be found due to the first defendant. The first issue was whether the plaintiff was an agriculturist. Undoubtedly the major part of his income was derived from the produce of mango trees. But it has been held in both Courts that he is not an agriculturist within the meaning of that word in the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Belief Act because the trees were full-grown and received no attention from the plaintiff. He merely took the fruit when it, was ripe. Undoubtedly, if a person derives the greater portion of his income from land by sale of the crops of any sort, and standing crops include fruit, he mast be considered an agriculturist. If he owns certain fruit trees and lets out the right to take the fruits to tenants, he would be an agricu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR799
Shah, J.1. These appeals (Second Appeals Nos. 927, 928, 940, 911, 950 of 1919 and 48, 108, 129, 319, 320, 821 and 322 of 1920) relate to the alienations either of the Inam or Mirasi rights of the Vatandar. The plaintiff is the successor of the original Vatandars whose right, title and interest were either sold at Court sales or by private transfers. The plaintiff claims to recover possession of these lands on the ground that these are Vatan lands and that the alienations have ceased to be operative alter the life-time of the original Vatandars.2. The lands in question have been found to be Vatan lands. It is dear that the alienations made after Regulation XVI of 1827 came to be applied, to the District of Satara would not be operative beyond the life-time of the Vatandar. All these alienations except one were effected during the years 1863-74, i.e., after the Regulation XVI of 1827 was made applicable to this district and before the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act (III of 1874) came into...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR793
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit tiled in the Small Causes Court by the plaintiff against the proprietor of Wimbridge & Co. claiming wages which were due to him. The admitted facts are that the plaintiff received a daily wage, the amount he had earned during the month being calculated according to the days on which he worked. Sundays, therefore, and the days on which the plaintiff was absent, were not paid for, The plaintiff's evidence as shown by the record is as follows :-' We are not paid for ' Sunday'. Our wages are one rupee per day. Wages are calculated at that rate, though paid in lump. I am also not paid for days absent. We were asking for more pay. Defendant declined and I left. Some others also left.' Then the correspondence was put in which throws no light on the present question, except that in it the plaintiff claimed that he was a daily labourer, and at the end of the defendant's letter of the 3rd of July appear the following words : ' The story of 1 daily work...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 64Ind.Cas.103
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. In 1915 certain lands in the village of Kerol, Taluka Salsette, in the Thana District were notified for acquisition under Act I of 1894, as being required by the Municipality of Bombay for the purpose of a terminal reservoir. One Jacob Bapuji, Deputy Collector in charge of the Salsette Taluka, was directed to take order for the acquisition of the land. He proceeded with his inquiry and on the 22nd March 1916, the following entry appears in the roznama: 'Proceedings returned, award passed and sent for approval to the Consulting Surveyor through the Collector of Thana.' The same day the Deputy Collector wrote to the Consulting Surveyor to Government through the Collector of Thana as follows (Exhibit 28): 'Under Rule 11(3) of instructions for the guidance of Acquiring Officers I have the honour to submit herewith my proposed award for the land to be acquired for the above purpose for your approval and favour of return.' On the 3rd July the Consulting Surveyor wrote ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR779
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In 1915 certain lands in the village of Kirol, Taluka Salsette, in the Thana District were notified for acquisition under Act I of 1894 as being required by the Municipality of Bombay for the purpose of a terminal reservoir. One Jaaob Bapuji, Deputy Collector in charge of the Salsette Taluka, was directed to take order for the acquisition of the land. He proceeded with his inquiry and on the 22nd March 1916, the following entry appears in the Roznama : 'Proceedings returned, award passed and sent for approval to the Consulting Surveyor through the Collector of Thana.' The same day the Deputy Collector wrote to the Consulting Surveyor to Government through the Collector of Thana as follows (Exhibit 28): 'Under Bule II (3) of instructions for the guidance of Acquiring Officers I have the honour to submit herewith my proposed award for the land to be acquired for the above purpose for your approval and' favour of return.' On the 3rd July the Consulting Surveyor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1922)ILR46Bom366
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In 1915 certain lands in the village of Kirol, Taluka Salsette, in the Thana District were notified for acquisition under Act I of 1894 as being required by the Municipality of Bombay for the purposes of a terminal reservoir. One Jacob Bapuji, Deputy Collector in charge of the Salsette Taluka, was directed to take order for the acquisition of the land. He proceeded with his inquiry and on the 22nd March 1916 the following entry appears in the Roznama: 'Proceedings returned, award passed and sent for approval to the Consulting Surveyor through the Collector of Thana'. The same day the Deputy Collector wrote to the Consulting Surveyor to Government through the Collector of Thana as follows (Exhibit 28) 'Under Rule II(3) of Instructions for the Guidance of Acquiring Officers I have the honour to submit herewith my proposed award for the land to be acquired for the above purpose for your approval and favour of return.' On the 3rd July the Consulting Surveyor wro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR803
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the moveable and immoveable property described in the plaint.2. One Satvaji died in 1864 leaving his widow Sakhubai Vithabai the widow of his predeceased son, and a grandson Govinda. After Satvaji's death, his estate was managed by his widow Sakhubai until her death in 1867. Govinda died a minor in the same year. His mother Vithabai succeeded as his heir. The plaintiffs are the grandsons of Ramba, the brother of Satvaji. The defendants are the sons of Vithabai's brothers.3. The plaintiffs disputed various alienations made by Vithabai, They fall under three heads. The first was of certain property at Banegaon. The plaintiffs got a decree with regard to some of the properties at Banegaon and the decision of the lower Court has not been contested in appeal.4. The second set of properties were originally the ancestral property of Vithabai's brothers, Rama and Pandu. These properties were sold in execution in 1876 and were...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1922)ILR46Bom32
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit for a declaration to the effect that Survey Nos. 177 and 40 of the Tagdi village, bounded as described in the plaint, belonged in common to all the 100 Dokda sharers of the village for use as common pasture and grainyard, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from using the land of the said numbers, either by themselves, or through others, for other purposes, and from interfering with the plaintiffs either by themselves or through others in the use of the same for the said purposes. The plaintiffs' case is that the village of Tagdi was first partitioned into two main shares of 50 Dokdas each in 1809, when lands of the Padar and grainyard were kept joint. They rely upon the certified copy of the document passed between the parties ancestors in that year. The original was not forthcoming, but the copy which was produced showed that the original was produced in Court in 1823. It has been ascertained from the or...
Tag this Judgment!