Mumbai Court July 1921 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Rustomji Mancherji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom370; (1921)23BOMLR984
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused is charged with having committed a public nuisance in that he worked a Hour mill in a residential neighbourhood. He was charged under Section 290, Indian Penal Code, and the proceedings have been referred to this Court by the Sessions Judge on account of the conduct of the Magistrate in that he tried the case summarily although an applies' was made by the accused that the case should not be tried in a summary manner. The result has been that although the case lasted for a considerable time, there is no record of the trial from which we can form an opinion that the conviction was right. In the end the accused has been fined Rs. 25. But the result of the conviction is that he is unable to carry on his business and work U13 Hour mill, without rendering himself liable to further conviction.2. That no doubt is a very serious matter. The question whether this flour mill is a public nuisance is one which ought to be properly tried.3. There is another ob...
Tag this Judgment!Khanderao Dattatraya Wakde Vs. Balkrishna Mahadeo Phulambrikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1083
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a decree was passed in a partition suit instituted by one Phulambrikar asking for partition of his one-third share of a certain house in Poona. The house is owned by the following persons in equal shares, Phulambrikar who had bought one-third from Bhikaji, a member of the original family of owners, Balvant the second defendant a member of that family, and Khanderao the third defendant who derives his title through Gangadhar, a member of the original family. After the partition decree was passed, applications were made by the second defendant, under Section 4 of the Partition Act, asking the execution Court to take action under that section with regard to the shares of the plaintiff and the third defendant.2. The lower Court granted the application and an appeal against that decision was dismissed. Undoubtedly the second defendant is entitled to have a valuation made of the share of the plaintiff who is a transferee from a member of the original ...
Tag this Judgment!Bala Khandapa Vazirde Vs. Sadashiv Hari Chivate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1066
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain property on the basis of a sale-deed and a karar, namely, an agreement to reoonvey, passed on one and the same date. The sale-deed was registered, the karar was not. Both Courts have held that want of registration is fatal to the plaintiff's case. The two documents, Exh. 22, which is the deed of sale, and Exh. 23, the karar, must have been drafted to gether and executed at or about the same time. It does not make much difference whether cue was executed before the other. But it seems to me inevitable that these two documents must be considered as the evidence of one transaction. Still if the one document is evidence of a transaction complete in itself, it may be registered without the other. Therefore the first, which made the defendant the owner of the property, being registered, the defendant's title as owner is good.2. Then the plaintiff lias to prove that he is entitled to get a reconveyance from the de...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulla Avjal MomIn Vs. Ismail Mugal Foda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1079
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to have their right of per-emption enforced as regards the plaint house sold to the first defendant by the second defendant, on their paying the sale to defendant No. 1. The only issue in the trial Court was whether the plaintiffs had performed all the ceremonies required of safldari. That was found in the negative and the suit was dismissed.2. In the first appeal the issues for decision were (1) whether the lower Court erred in holding that the two demands were not made in this case, and that the first demands was not expressly referred to at the time of making the second demand ;(2) whether it erred inholding that plaintiff No. 2 must have known Of the sale during the absence of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3 and that he was in the town of Godhra then.3. These are purely issues of fact and were both found in the affirmative, and the Court reversing the decree of the trial Court directed that on the plaintiffs paying to defendant No, 1 Rs, 1,90...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Rama Nana Hagavne
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR987
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Karad Division, of an offence under Section 196, Indian Penal Code. He was originally charged with having committed an assault on one Dhondi on the 1919. His defence was an alibi and in support of that defence he produced a cattle pound receipt and called the Patil of Chindholi to prove that he was at that village on the day of the alleged assault. The defence was not believed and the accused was convicted. He was then sent for trial together with the Patil under the provisions of h. 76 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate found that the Patil fabricated evidence in order to save the present applicant and that they both corruptly used that evidence with full knowledge of its false character.2. An appeal to the Sessions Judge was dismissed.3. We have been asked to exercise our revisional jurisdiction on the ground that it has been held by this Court in Imperator v. Bhausing Jalamsing (1909) Cr...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomedbahi Huseinbhai Vs. Adamji Halimbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1086
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit originally instituted in the Bulsar Court by the plaintiffs who are the heirs of one Husainbhai Abderehman, deceased, for an account of the management which his co-sharer and trustee deceased Sulemanji and his successors the defendants, or any of them might have made of the share of the said Husainbhai in the plaint house, and of the amount which the deceased Sulemanji or the defendants or any of them might have received by mortgaging and selling that share, and for recovering the amount that might be found due with Costs. The Bulsar Court decided that it had no jurisdiction, and accordingly the plaint was presented thereafter in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Surat.2. The facts are that Husainbhai and Sulemanji were paternal cousins, originally residents of Bulsar, who traded in partnership in Delagoa Bay in Portuguese South Africa; that from that partnership money they purchased a house called 'a new house. Husainbhai wit...
Tag this Judgment!Gumanji Dhiraji Marwadi Vs. Vishwanath Parbhu Hingmire
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1072
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Parbhu mortgaged four properties to Gumanji Dhiraji for Rs. 275 on the 15th September 1903. Gumanji filed a suit (No. 340 of 1914) against Parbhu's eon and four others to recover Us. 539-8-0 due under the mortgage and obtained a decree which provided that defendants Nos. 3 to 5, who apparently made themselves personally responsible for the debt, should pay the amount claimed with costs of the suit, of the plaintiff within six months; that if they failed to do so, then the amount should be recovered by sale of the property No. 3; and that in case the amount realized by the sale of the said property should be found insufficient, then the plaintiff was at liberty to seek relief under Section 15B, Clause (2), of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act for bringing the other properties to sale for the satisfaction of the deficit amount. The second defendant was impleaded because the debt was said to have been incurred for his benefit by the father of defendant...
Tag this Judgment!Entisham Ali Vs. Jamna Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR675
Phillimore, J.1. Eshan Ali Khan, being in possession of a bazaar called Ehsaganj, mortgaged it to Sheo Prasad by a mortgage dated November 9, 1873, and further encumbered it with charges in favour of the mortgagee, the total amounting to Rs. 2073. The mortgage was a usufructuary one, and the mortgagee was put in possession of the bazaar. Along with the bazaar certain other properties were also mortgaged. On December 18, 1882, Ehsan Ali Khan is said by the plaintiff, who is the present appellant, to have sold the property, subject to the mortgage and charges, to the appellant's predecessors in title for Rs. 3000; it being calculated that Rs. 2800 would be the amount of the encumbrances with interest and costs and Rs. 200 the value of the equity of redemption. Therefore only Rs. 200, as the plaintiff alleges, was paid to Ehsan Ali Khan. The devolution of the property thus sold, if it was in fact sold, from the original vendees to the appellant is not in dispute.2. On October 16, 1911, th...
Tag this Judgment!Nagindas Maneklal Vs. Mahomad Yusuf Mitchela
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1094
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for specific perform, by the plaintiff of a contract which was entered into with him by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who were the adult members of a joint Hindu family. The immovable property winch contacted to sell was ancestral, and the ground upon which the suit for specific performance was resisted was that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 at date of the contract had minor sons who had vested interests in the property and that as the family was in a good condition it was not necessary to sell it. Both the lower Courts have allowed the plaintiff's claim.2. It is cntended that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have no power according to Hindu law to alienate the ancestral estate so as to bind the interests of the minor member of the family without legal necessity; and it is further contended that no legal necessity is proved and that benefit to the minors is not sufficient to justify the sale. Several caases have been cited in the course of the argument on the que...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayakaro Moreshwar Natu Vs. Gyanoba Hariba Navale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1062
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona, in Original Suit No. 56 of 1917.2. Certain lands in the village of Fulgaon originally belonged to one K.B. Dhavle, who, on the 25th June 1910, agreed to sell them to the plaintiff and hia brother defendant No. 4 for Rs. 8,000. Rs. 1,000 were paid as earnest money the balance of Rs. 7,000 was to be paid after a year. A Satekhat was; executed and registered. The contract, however, fell through as the plaintiff was unable to pay the balance within the agreed time. Dhavle then sold the lands to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and executed in their favour a sale-deed, Exhibit 72, on 1st July 1912. Plaintiff and defendant No. 4 gave their consent relinquishing whatever right they may have had under their contract. The plaintiff, however, alleged that defendant No. 1 orally agreed to sell the lands to him for Rs. 8,000 out of which Rs. 1,500 were paid as part-payment and the balance of Rs. 6...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »