Mumbai Court May 1921 Judgments
Thiruvenkatasami Iyengar Vs. Pavadai Pillai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-26-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR606
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated November 25, 1910, which affirmed the decree of the Sub-Cordinate Judge of Kumbakonam, dated September 30, 1907, and made on an execution petition No. 279 of 1905.2. The appellants are the punchayetdars of a temple and as such hold a decree for mesne profits against the respondents or their predecessors in title. Their petition praying for the execution of this decree was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, and his judgment was upheld by the High Court. From this latter decision the decree-holders have brought this appeal.3. There were nine plaintiffs originally in the suit. All but three of them have died or resigned or been removed from the trusteeship.4. The appellants, to use the words of Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, are resident within the local limits of jurisdiction of the Court within which limits the application by petition was to be made, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Sadasukh Gambhirchand Vs. Baijnath Harnandrai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-25-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom87; (1921)23BOMLR854
Pratt, J.1. This is a summons for review of the taxation of plaintiff's bill of costs in Suit No. 1428 of 1919 and Appeal No. 15 of 1920. Both in the Suit and in the Appeal the brief fees claimed for counsel were fifteen G. Ma. for the one and thirteen G. Ms. for the other. The Taxing Master has reduced these to twelve G. Ms. and ten G. Ms. in the Suit, and ten G. Ms. and eight G. Ms. in the Appeal.2. These are the reductions complained of and it is said that they offend against the cases of Robb v. Connor IL (1874) 373 and Sturgis v. Morse (No. 2)(1859) 26 Beav. 562. In Robb v. Connor, the Taxing Master's decision was reversed, because he had in fact exercised no discretion. He reduced the fees marked by the attorney on the brief not because he considered them excessive but merely in a spirit of wanton interference out of a desire to clip and shave. That is not the case here. The Taxing Master's order shows that he has considered the nature and importance of the suit, the amount invol...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannatha Bheema Deo Vs. Kunja Behari Deo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR600
Viscount Haldane, J.1. This case is an important one, and but for a preliminary point on which it turns, might have been a long one. There is, however, a preliminary question which goes to the root of the appeal. Sri Sri Brojo Kishore Deo executed a document in favour of his wife on August 14, 1906 He called it a will, in the body of the document; but its only operative contents are to be found in the words which follow: 'I have been laid up! with severe bodily illness for about the last seven months. Consequently having had serious misgivings, and not having until now been blessed with an heir-apparent for want of divine favour, I have consented to your adopting a son at your pleasure and conducting the management of the estate in the best manner. None of my heirs shall have cause to raise disputes touching this matter. This will has been executed with my consent.'2. It will be observed that what is said by the writer of the document is that having had serious misgivings, and not havi...
Tag this Judgment!Chandra Kanta Das Vs. Parasullah Mullick
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR602
Viscount Haldane, J.1. The question in this appeal arises in a suit by which it was sought to have decided that the plaintiff, who is the appellant, was entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 5400, with interest amounting to Rs. 67-8, as due to him under certain agreements. The defence was a charge of fraud in obtaining the agreements, and as a separate defence, that the main agreement was invalid as being in restraint of trade. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Khulna in Bengal, who tried the case, decided it in favour of the appellant for the modified amount of Rs. 5280, the difference being given on the footing that the respondent (being the defendant) was entitled to a small amount for compensation, on the ground of partial failure of consideration. As to this difference, no substantial controversy has been raised, and their Lordships do not think that any question is before them for decision in relation to it.2. When the case went on appeal to the High Court at Fort William, t...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Bhaurao Deshmukh Vs. Jiaul Hasan Sirajul Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR595
Viscount Haldane, J.1. In this case several points have been referred to in the course of the argument which, if they arose, would be of great importance; but in the view their Lordships take, these points do not arise, and they therefore find themselves in a position to intimate at once the advice which they will tender to His Majesty.2. The suit in which the question arises was brought by the original plaintiff, who was the father of the present respondent, as administrator, to recover from the appellants a quarter undivided share in two villages, on the ground that the original plaintiff was entitled to a right of pre-emption in regard to them under Mahomedan law. The question is whether the original plaintiff had such a right of pre-emption. The case was heard before the Additional Subordinate Judge at Thana, and it went to the High Court at Bombay on appeal. It came before the Additional Subordinate Judge and before the High Court on various interlocutory points, but finally a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Peari Mohan Mukerji and Vs. Monohar Mukerji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR913
Buckmaster, J.1. Many questions were originally involved in the dispute which has given rise to this appeal, but of these two only remain. The first relates to the continuance of the appellant Raja Peary Mohan Mukerji in the office of Shebait to the debottar estcate of Sri Sri Iswar Gopaleswar Shiva Thakur and Sri Sri Iswar Shridhar Thakur, and the second to the purchase in January, 1913, of a certain Lot known as Lot Bahirgora, which was sold in execution under circumstances to which their Lordships will briefly refer.2. By his will, dated the 11th September, 1840, Jaga Mohan Mukerji dedicated certain properties to the worship of the two Thakurs established by him, for the annual celebration of the Durga Puja, the Sradh of ancestors, and other pious usages, the will providing for the order of succession to the office of the Shebait among the testator's own descendants.3. The testator died shortly after the execution of his will, and in September of 1890 the succession to the Shebaitsh...
Tag this Judgment!Arumilli Perrazu Vs. Arumilli Subbarayadu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR920
John Edge, J.1. These appeals raise a question of great and far-reaching importance with regard to the rights of succession in the Presidency of Madras, but this is associated with a series of relatively unimportant matters relating to questions of accounts that have arisen in these circumstances.2. The first plaintiff in the suit, who is the first respondent to each appeal, was the manager for many years of a joint family estate which appears greatly to have prospered under his care. Distrust, however, arose, and was apparently well justified, as to his dealing with certain portions of the estate, and elaborate enquiries were set on foot outside the Courts for the purpose of ascertaining what the true position was. This first respondent-uneasy, it is asserted, as to the prospect of proceedings being brought against him as the result of these enquiries-instituted proceedings himself, to which the appellants were parties, alleging that they also had been in custody of part of the joint ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›