Mumbai Court July 1921 Judgments
Anandrao Purshottam Hatkar Vs. Bhikaji Sadashiv Vaishampayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR979
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for redemption of a possessory mortgage executed to the defendants' ancestor by the plaintiff's father. Accounts were taken and it has been found that Rs. 7801-6-9 are due by the plaintiff on the mortgage. The question arose whether the mortgagee was in a position to give back possession to the plaintiff of all the lands of which he had taken possession when the mortgage was executed. The trial Court held that no lands had been lost through the negligence of the mortgagee. The appellate Judge found that the mortgagee had been put in possession of all the mortgaged lands, but that the Commissioner appointed had found that eleven pieces of land were not in the mortgagee's possession at the time of his inquiry. Then the Judge said :-Considering the precarious condition of the lands which required constant care and repairs, it is likely that some of the lands were neglected and this negligence opened the door to trespassers. Now the question a...
Tag this Judgment!Nagindas Kapurchand Vs. Maganlal Panachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1023
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think the Judge was wrong in disallowing the five days which elapsed between the 24th June and 29th June, on which latter date the plaintiff got back his plaint from the first Court. We see no reference in the judgment to the affidavit of the plaintiff that he had asked for the plaint on the 24th June, that he was told that a copy was to be made, and that the plaint would be returned after the copy was made. But in any circumstances a party cannot always get back his plaint on the same day as an order is made that the plaint has been filed in the wrong Court; and -as long as the plaintiff has exercised ordinary diligence in pursuing his claim, there is no reason why the period up to the day when he gets back his plaint should not be taken into account. Therefore, in this case, the rule will be made absolute by directing the lower Court to allow the plaintiff the five days which elapsed between 24th June and 29th June in getting back a copy of the plaint a...
Tag this Judgment!Chandbhai Mahamadbhai Vs. Hasanbhai Rahimtula
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1033
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the suit property was the joint property of the plaintiff and the first defendant, and that the second defendant] who has purchased some of the property from the first defendant alone had no interest in the property, and for partition. He alleged that the plaintiff and first defendant had purchased the suit property in union in July 1894. Hence the suit for partition. The first defendant contended that the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property; that it was in his exclusive possession and enjoyment, and that the plaintiff's suit was barred; that the suit property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and defendant, but plaintiff could not pay his share of the money, Hence the property was in the first defendant's exclusive possession and enjoyment. Unfortunately on these pleadings the proper issues were not raised. This admittedly was a case in which the property had been purchased ...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Dodfakirapa Hebballiyavar Vs. Fakirappa Shenkrappa Hebballiyav ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1040
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the land and house specified in the plaint. He alleged that he had two brothers Ghatigeppa and Basippa who were divided in interest; that Ghatigeppa died leaving behind him defendant No. 1, his grandson, and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 his sons; that Basappa had a wife Mallava and a son Dodyella; that the father predeceased his son, and that subsequently the son Dodyella also died without any heirs except his own mother who also died about three months before suit after enjoying the plaint property. The plaintiff further alleged that he was the sole heir after Mallava's death and that the defendants had been, without any right, holding the property. The defendants pleaded that Mallava and plaintiff had passed the plaint property by gift, on the 14th February 1917, by executing a duly registered instrument, in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiff in his reply denied having passed a deed of gift along with Mallav...
Tag this Judgment!Nippon Menkwa Kalmshiki Vs. F. Portlock
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR54
Pratt, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case, the Japanese Cotton Trading Company, purchased, on the 29th July 1920, the remainder of a sub-lease of Gool Mansion, Mayo Road. The building comprises eight flats, of which one is in the occupation of the defendants as tenants. The plaintiffs purchased the building in order to provide residence for their Japanese staff, and the day after the purchase gave the defendants notice to quit on the 1st of October 1920. The defendants attorned to the plaintiffs and paid rent which was accepted up to the 1st of October, but as they pleaded the Bombay Rent Act and declined to quit, the plaintiffs have filed this suit.2. The following issues were raised :-(1) Whether the purchase of the property in suit by the plaintiffs is not ultra tires of the Company, and if so, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to maintain this suit?(2) Whether the plaintiffs require the premises in suit reasonably and bona fide for their own use and occupation within the meaning of...
Tag this Judgment!Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Vs. Balusami Ayyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR629
Ameer Ali, J.1. The suit that has given rise to this appeal relates to certain lands lying in the town of Madura in the Madras Presidency which admittedly belong to an old math situated within the Mysore State, The origin, development, and raison d'etre of these maths have been discussed in a number of cases decided in the Madras High Court to some of which their Lordships propose to refer in the course of this judgment. In their general characteristics they are almost identical with similar institutions in Northern India and in the Bombay Presidency. The heads of these foundations bear different designations in respect of the rights and incidents attached to the office; the difference arises from the customs and usages of each institution. The superior of this particular math has been called in these proceedings matathipathi and sometimes pandara sannadhi, which their Lordships understand connote the same idea of headship. At the time this action was brought, the 26th defendant held t...
Tag this Judgment!Sachindra Nath Roy Vs. Maharaj Bahadur Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1921
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR659
Atkinson, J.1. The financial dealings between the several parties concerned out of which the appeals in this case have arisen are somewhat complicated. It is, however, necessary to examine them in order to understand clearly the points calling for decision. On March 8, 1886, May 12, 1887, and May 12, 1892, the predecessors in title of the appellants in this litigation, styled the Roys, borrowed from one Dhanpat Singh three sums of Rs. 3,00,000, Rs. 20,000 and Rs. 15,000 respectively, and secured the repayment thereof with interest at the rates stipulated by three mortgages bearing the above respective dates of certain immovable property belonging to them, the Roys. These mortgages were presumably, in the ordinary form, conveyances of the absolute interest in the property pledged with the usual provision for redemption, coupled with covenants by the mortgagors to pay the debt due under them. The Transfer of Property Act permits in Calcutta the creation of equitable mortgages by deposit ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandbhai Mahamadbhai Vohra Vs. Hasanbhai Rahimtoola Vohra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom213
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the suit property was the joint property of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, and that the 2nd defendant who had purchased some of the property from the 1st defendant alone had no interest in the property, and for partition. He alleged that the plaintiff and 1st defendant had purchased the suit property in union in July 1894. Hence the suit for partition. The 1st defendant contended that the plaintiff was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit property; that it was in his exclusive possession and enjoyment, and that the plaintiff's suit was barred; that the suit property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and defendant, but plaintiff could not pay his share of the money. Hence the property was in the 1st defendant's exclusive possession and enjoyment. Unfortunately on these pleadings the proper issues were not raised. This admittedly was a case in which the property had been purchased by the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!The Sholapur Municipality Vs. Shankar Sheshbhat Ambalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1018
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to get a refund of Rs. 52 from the defendant Municipality, and for an injunction restraining the defendant from levying double house-tax for the plaintiff's land bearing Survey Nos. 209 and 210. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but on appeal a decree was passed that the defendant should refund to the plaintiff Rs. 51, and the plaintiff was granted the injunction prayed for.2. The facts which are not disputed are that the plaintiff is the owner of two Survey Numbers for which he pays assessment to Government. He has let out the lands in these Survey Numbers to 350 tenants who have built their own houses on them, each paying a ground rent to the plaintiff which is less than Ra. 10 The Municipality has assessed the plaintiff for these Survey Numbers on the aggregate rental which he received per annum from all his tenants.3. Two questions arise, first, whether the levying of the rate on plaintiff a land was illegal; secondly, whether...
Tag this Judgment!Bapuji Rustamji Karawalla Vs. Haji Esmail Haji Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1259
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. By an agreement dated 14th February 1920 the plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendant in the name of his nominee Haji Sulleman Salley Mahomed, two properties belonging to the plaintiff described in the schedule to the agreement. One of these premises was situats at Chandanvadi. A dispute has arisen between the parties as to whether the plaintiff has made out a marketable title to the said property at Chandanvadi.2. The property belonged to one Behramji Dadabhai Pochkhana-walla, who died in Bombay on or about the 28th of June 1895, having, prior to his death, duly made his last will and testament dated the 2nd April 1895. By Clause 12 of the said will the testator gave to his nephew Bapuji Rustamji Keravalla, the plaintiff in this case, for his life-time this Chandanvadi house. The testator directed that the said nephew should, out of the rents of the said house, defray all the expenses for doing repairs thereto and pay the bills for assessment thereof and s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »