Mumbai Court July 1921 Judgments
Parvatava Nemappa Havaldar Vs. Fakirnaik Iranaik Naikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1075
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Parvatava filed Suit No. 180 of 1917 to recover possession of the suit property alleging that it belonged to Nemappa who died in 1917 leaving him surviving the plaintiff his senior widow, defendant No. 2, his junior widow, and defendant No. 4, Kalava, his mother; that defendant No. 2 the junior widow adopted defendant No. 3; and that that adoption was false and invalid. The alleged adopted son has file Suit No. 834 of 1918 asking for a perpetual injunction restraining Kalava, the mother of Nemappa, from obstructing him in the enjoyment of the plaint lands.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the marriage between Parvatava and Nemappa was not proved. Ho also held that the adoption of Adiveppa was proved and valid. If the adoption of Adiveppa is not valid, then the question regarding the marriage of Parwatava and Nemappa becomes of secondary importance, because Kalava, the person principally interested, has given evidence to the effect that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Kuthali Moothavar Vs. Peringati Kunharankutty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR669
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dated December 3, 1917, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which allowed in part an appeal from a decree dated March 20, 1916, of the Court of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Tellicherri. The suit was brought by the present appellant to establish his title to thirty-four hills in the North Malabar district The decree of the Subordinate Judge was in favour of the respondent with regard to ten of the hills, comprising, roughly stated, the north and north-east portion of the group of thirty-four. No question is raised in this appeal with regard to those ten hills, it being conceded that the defendant has a title thereto.2. The still outstanding issue between the parties, however, is as to the remaining group of hills, twenty-four in number, which may be said in general terms to form the southern half of the entire group which was originally in suit and to be bounded on the south by the Peruvanna River. With regard to those twenty-four ...
Tag this Judgment!Parvatava Kom Nemapa Havildar Vs. Fakirnaik BIn Iranaik Naikar and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom307
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Parwatava filed Suit No. 180 of 1917 to recover possession of the suit property alleging that it belonged to Nemapa who died in 1917 leaving him surviving the plaintiff, his senior widow, defendant No. 2 his junior widow, and defendant No. 4, Kalava his mother; that defendant No. 2 the junior widow adopted defendant No. 3; and that that adoption was false and invalid. The alleged adopted son has filed Suit No. 334 of 1918 asking for a perpetual injunction restraining Kalava, the mother of Nemapa, from obstructing him in the enjoyment of the plaint lands.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that the marriage between Parvatava and Nemapa was not proved. He also held that the adoption of Adiveppa was proved and valid. If the adoption of Adivepppa is not valid, then the question regarding the marriage of Parvatava and Nemapa becomes of secondary importance, because Kalava, the person principally interested, has given evidence to the effect that the mar...
Tag this Judgment!Suganchand Savaichand Vs. Motilal Durgaprasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR154; 67Ind.Cas.130
Pratt, J.1. Plaintiffs are the owners of a building at Vithalwady and let the first floor to Ramjilal Ramswarup on the 15th November 1917 at a rental of Rs. 40 per mensem.2. Plaintiffs say that Ramjilal Ramswarup's rent was in arrears and he had sub-let the premises contrary to the terms of his lease Therefore, they gave notice terminating the tenancy on the 10th November 1920.3. In the meantime, however, on the 26th October 1920, Ramjilal Ramswarup was adjudicated insolvent and left Bombay. On 28th October 1920, the Official Assignee's auctioneers wrote that they had taken away Ramjilal Ramswarup's moveables and vacated the premises. The plaintiffs went there that day. Plaintiff No. 3 says he found defendants in possession of two rooms and that he locked the other two.4. On 29th October 1920, the Official Assignee sent a notice of his intention to disclaim the leasehold, and on 7th December 1920 the Official Assignee disclaimed tenancy as from that date. Squabbles about possession bet...
Tag this Judgment!Ramnath Dwarkanath Waiwoode Vs. Ramrao Balkrishna Dhotre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1135
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiff sues to receiver the amount duo on a promissory note for Rs. 2,600 passed in his favour by the defendant on the 16th of April 1920. He claims the sum of Rs. 2,390 together with interest thereon at nine per cent.2. The defendant in his written statement sets up various objections to the suit, and the substantial ones are embodied in the following issues:-(1) Whether the plaintiff can are on the promissory note without ranking his brothers parties to the suit?(2) Whether in any event he can sue Without obtaining Letters of Adminis' tration to the estate of his father 2(3) Whether at the date of the promissory note the plaintiff was the manager of the joint Hindu family ?(4) Whether there was a subsequent oral agreement as alleged in pavalof the written statement ?(5) If so, whether the suit is not premature except as to Rs. 100 ?3. The oral agreement referred to is that the plaintiff should not demand the sum of Rs. 2,600 at once and that the defendant should ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Balaji Apte Vs. Mahadeo Gopal Jog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1000
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover the balance of the purchase money due on a contract of sale dated the 8th November 1915, whereby he contracted to sell certain property for Rs. 6,000 to the father of the defendants. In pursuance of the contract, the possession of the suit land was given to the defendants' father on the 7th December 1915, but no sale deed was passed owing to the illness of the defendants' father. Thereafter disputes arose with regard to the payment, with the result that the defendants, according to the plaintiff's case, only paid Rs. 1,750. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed Rs. 5,362-7-6 according to the account in the plaint together with further interest at seven and a half percent, on Rs. 4,250.2. The defendants raised various defences, but the principal question in the suit was whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the unpaid balance of the purchase money. The lower Court has decided this question against the plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhandas Nathalal Patel Vs. Bai Suraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom193; (1921)23BOMLR1068
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner prayed for the grant of letters of administration with the will annexed of the assets and property left by his deceased uncle Somnath Bapuji who died in Bombay at about 3 A.M. on 14th April 1918 in the house of the petitioner. The deceased ' Somnath, according to the petitioner, executed a will at about 10 P.M. on the 13th April 1918, that is about five or six hours before his death. The opponents to the grant were the widow of the deceased and her two daughters. Two other daughters of the deceased by his first wife have acquiesced is the petitioner's claim to letters.2. The Judge in the Court below has refused to grant letters with the will annexed to the petitioner. There is no doubt that Somnath was very ill. But at the same time the evidence that a will was drawn up and signed by him when he was in a state of consciousness is all one way. Then the learned Judge has unfortunately taken a wrong view of the provisions of the will which, in my...
Tag this Judgment!Ellis Enas Pavloo Gharry Vs. Kitter Philip Gowrya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR981
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for execution of a decree which directed that the suit property should be partitioned amongst the sharers. The defendants alleged that the plaintiff had compromised on the 22nd September 1919, and in pursuance of the compromise they had paid plaintiff Rs. 4,600, while Rs. 400 were yet to be paid in full satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim. It is admitted that the compromise was not recorded, therefore the plaintiff says that the Court executing the decree in the absence of any certificate cannot recognise the adjustment. The Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the plaintiff and directed that the papers should be sent to the Commissioner and the Collector for the partition of the property2. It has bean argued that Order XXI, Rull 2 only applies to decrees for money. The words are where any money payable under a decree of any kind is paid out of Court, or the decree is otherwise adjusted.' These words do not seem to me to confine th...
Tag this Judgment!Vedachela Mudaliar Vs. Subramania Mudaliar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR649
Ameer Ali, J.1. The two actions which have given rise to the present consolidated appeal relate to the inheritance of one Sankaramurthi Mudaliar, a Hindu inhabitant of the Tinnevelly District in the Madras Presidency, subject to the law of the Mitakshara as recognized in the Dravida country. The question for determination is of considerable importance and their Lordships cannot help regretting that, owing to the non-appearance of the respondents, it has been heard ex parte. Sankaramurthi died in 1900 without leaving any male issue or a widow. Consequently, on his death his mother, Vedammal, who was alive at the time, succeeded to his estate. She held the property until her own demise in 1910. Thereupon the two claimants, Subramania (since deceased) and Vedachela, came forward alleging title as bandhus to Sankaramurthi's inheritance, each claiming by virtue of his relationship to be preferentially entitled.2. The following table will show the position in which they stand to each other a...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayak Dattatraya Joshi Vs. Ganesh Anant Hasabnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1024
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. A curious point arises in this second appeal upon which there does not appear to be any authority. The facts are that the plaintiff's father obtained possession of the plaint lands on the 5th March 1895 in execution of an award decree. He then obtained a registered rent-note from one Dnanu Aba on the 22nd July 1895. In July 1897 he brought a possessory suit against Dnanu and got a decree for possession in August 1897. The plaintiff remained in the possession of the land until 1904 and paid assessment. Then the Judge says that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the first Defendant in 1904. How he was dispossessed does not appear. But in 1904-05 the Collector took action under Section 81 of the Bombay Land Bevenut Code as the plaintiff failed to pay assessment for that year. There was a mutation of the Khata of the plaint lands into the name of Shahaji Gondaji who was the plaintiff's co-sharer in the property, on his paying up the arrears due. It was not mentio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »