Mumbai Court August 1921 Judgments
Narayan Laxman Adhikari Vs. Chapsi Dosa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1186
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 5,407-11-7 as principal and Rs. 248-12-0 as interest from the first and second defendants. The first and second defendant and one Ramchandra, brother of the first defendant, wore a joint Hindu family carrying on business in groceries, and in the course of that business had dealings with the plaintiffs. There were various Khatas, five in all, representing the transactions between the parties. Before 1913 Ramchandra separated, but the business was carried on by the first and second defendants. In August 1913 the amounts to the debit and credit of the various five Khatas were totalled, cerdits on one side and debits on the other, and the second defendant signed both the debits and credits as correct. Thereafter the account continued, and this suit is brought within three years of the signatures placed by the second defendant in the plaintiffs' books on the 8th August 1913.2. The first defendant is now dead and the second defen...
Tag this Judgment!Keshavalal Manganlal Trivedi Vs. Ambalal Veniram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1225
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was an application under the Guardians and Wards Act by the Kulmukhtyar of the Shankaracharya of the Sharadapith, Dakore, purporting to be the spiritual head of the community to which the opponents belonged. The occasion of the application was the approaching marriage of the girl for whom it was sought to get a guardian appointed. In the petition the Kulmukhtyar said : -'The opponent No. 1, the father of the girl, is unfit to be the gmirdian of the person of the minor for the reasons stated in paragraph 2, ' that is to say, because he Was going to marry the minor girl who was only four years' old, and thus sacrifice her in order to get a wife for himself, and because the petitioner apprehended that the minor girl might be left a widow at an early age. The Kulmukhtyar, therefore, prayed that the Court should give him the custody of the minor and appoint him guardian of the person and of the property of the minor.2. Now, it may be conceded that any friend...
Tag this Judgment!Bhau Adgauda Patil Vs. Narasagousa Tatya Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1272
Shah, J.1. The fads, which have given rise to these appeals, are few and undisputed. The following table indicates the relationship of the parties.Adgouda, the second son of Tatya Patil, was given in adoption in another branch of the family. He suffered from leprosy during the last few years of his life and on the 7th June 1909 he executed a vyavasthapatra whereby he made a provision for the maintenance of his wife and motlier and gave the rest of his property to his natural brother, Narsagouda, who is defendant No. 2 in the suit, by way of gift, lie changed his mind later and on the and September 1909 adopted his natural sister's son who is defendant No. 1 in the suit. Ho cancelled the vyavasthapatra on that very day and subsequently in July 1910 obtained a release from his natural brother, whereby all his property given by way of gift was reconveyed to him except certain land and a moiety of the house, which defendant No. 2 retained for himself. We are not concerned with the portion ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimrao Nagojirao Patankar Vs. Sakharam Sabaji Kantak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1268
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to redeem and recover possession of the plaint land which was mortgaged by his grandfather to the defendant's ancestor by a mortgage dated 17th March 1859. The plaintiff admits that at the same time as the mortgage another document was executed purporting to lease the land to the mortgagee on a permanent tenure on condition that the lessee paid a fixed rent of Us. 70. The defendant pleaded that he was a mortgagee not of the land in suit, but merely of the fixed rent payable to plaintiff as his landlord, he being Mirasdar of the land of long standing.2. Both the lower Courts have decided on that point in favour of the defendant and have passed a preliminary decree to the enact that if the plaintiff pays into Court Rs. 1501 (there is a misprint right through in the print '150' for '1501') within six months from the date of the decree, the plaintiff should be entitled to claim payment of the annual rent of Rs. 70 year by year from the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!The Tata Iron and Steel Company Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority, Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom128(1); (1921)23BOMLR1102
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court on a reference from the Chief Revenue Authority under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act (VII of 1918). Sub-section 3 of Section 51 is as follows:-The High Court upon the hearing of any such case shall decide the questions raised thereby, and shall deliver its judgment thereon containing the grounds on which such decision is founded, and shall send to the Revenue-Authority by which the case was stated a copy of such judgment under the seal of the Court and the signature of the Registrar; and the Revenue-Authority shall dispose of the case accordingly, or, if the case arose on reference from any Revenue-officer subordinate to it, shall forward a copy of suoh judgment to such officer who shall dispose of the case conformably to such judgment.2. It is contended by the respondent that the judgment of the High Court on the case stated by the Chief Revenue Auth...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Meherbai Nanabhai Banaji Vs. R.R. Dadina
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1183
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit by a landlord to eject a tenant from a house occupied by the tenant It was, therefore, a suit for possession of a house and but for the amendment of the Court Fees Act in 1905, the Court fees would have been payable on the value of the house. Consequently the value of the house would decide the jurisdiction and it would follow that the pleader's fees would be payable on the value of the house.2. Now that in a suit for recovery of immoveable property from a tenant the Court fees are payable according to the amount of rent of the property in the suit payable for the year next before the date of the presentation of the plaint, it follows that the Court fees are payable only on the amount of the annual rent and the amount of the annual rent would decide also the question of jurisdiction. But it does not necessarily follow that the pleader's fees, which were payable under the Act which was in-force when this suit was filed, would nor, be fixed acc...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Venkatesh Joglekar Vs. Ramchandra Narayan Joglekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1209
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit for a declaration that the ground on which the stable described in the plaint stood belonged exclusively to the plaintiff: that the ground under the drain described in the plaint belonged to the plaintiff: that the plaintiff had a right to remove the drain after giving proper notice to the defendant; and that in case it was found that any part of the ground under the drain was joint, an injunction might be granted against the defendant restraining him from obstructing the plaintiff while doing any work on the ground beyond that point and for further and other relief.2. The plaintiff and the defendant are the owners of adjoining properties in the City of Poona, and the dispute has arisen with regard to the stable and the drain mentioned in the plaint. There had been a decision by the Enquiry Officer to the effect that the gutter and the stable were common property. The Enquiry Officer had been appointed by Government apparently...
Tag this Judgment!Nathoobhai Dullabbhai Seth Vs. Himatlal Vastachand Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom336; (1921)23BOMLR1231
Kanga, J.1. This is an action brought by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 5,000 on an alleged promissory note, dated 4th June 1918.2. The defence is that the writing, dated 4th June 1918, is not a promissory note and that there was no consideration for the said writing even if it was a promissory note.3. The said writing is in the following terms:-Rs. 5,000' Bombay, 4th Jnne 1918.I promise to pay on demand at my convenience) Nathoobhai Dullabhjee Sheth the sum of rupees five thousand only for value received in cash at interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum.4. At the hearing on the application of the plaintiff's counsel the plaintiff was allowed to amend the plaint and plead in the alternative, that the writing dated 4th June 1918 was an agreement whereby the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 5,000 to the plaintiff. It is clear from the evidence in the case that whether the writing be regarded as a promissory note or as an agreement, the same is without consideration and the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Kushaba Ramji Thoke Vs. Budhaji Sakaram Thorat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1176
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs are the successors-in-title to the equity of redemption, which once existed in one Abaji Haibatrao, through one Hazarimal Birdichand who had purchased the equity of redemption at a Court-auction. He had sued for redemption in Suit No. 1138 of 1895, and a decree for redemption was passed with this condition that if the mortgagor failed to pay the mortgage money within the time provided by the decree he should be finally debarred from all rights to redeem. The mortgage was not redeemed, and the execution of that decree is now barred by limitation.2. The question in this suit was whether a second suit for redemption would lie. The trial Court rejected the claim. But the lower appellate Court relying on the decision in Ramji v. Pandharinath (1918) 21 Bom. L.R. 60, reversed the decree of the lower Court and remanded the suit for trial. That decision was justified at any rate by the head-note in the case referred to, which, I think, although it foll...
Tag this Judgment!Govindlal Bansilal Vs. Bansilal Motilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1921
Reported in: AIR1921Bom328; (1921)23BOMLR1049
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Pratt dismissing an application by the first defendant in the suit for leave to file an additional written statement. The suit was filed in 1917 by Bansilal Motilal, the father of the first defendant, asking for a declaration that all the properties in the hands of Motilal Shivlal at his death were ancestral joint family properties, and passed on his death by survivorship to the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and defendants Nos. 8 and 9, and that all the properties in British India might be partitioned amongst the plaintiff and the other members of the joint family entitled thereto by and under the directions of this Hon'ble Court. Clause 11 of the plaint is as follows :-The first defendant resides and pant of the properties both moveable and immoveable are situ be and the cause of action has arisen in Bombay within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the plaintiff submits that, with leave grant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »