Mumbai Court August 1921 Judgments
Raghunath Shivaji Kulkarni Vs. Ramchandra Narayan Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1098
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit to recover on a mortgage bond Rs. 1,500 for principal and Rs. 1,500 for interest. The first and fourth defendants appeared, They admitted the mortgage bond but contended that the whole consideration was not received; that the first defendant was in difficulty and so he admitted the previous debt of Rs. 900; that instalments should be granted; that accounts should be taken; and that the defendants only received Ra. 600 as consideration. Accordingly the learned Subordinate Judge took accounts with the result that he found that. on the 28th January 1903, two days before the bond, the principal sum due to the plaintiffs was Rs. 3,185-13-0. Nothing was paid in cash on the day of the bond, so that taking the principal sum on the data of the bond to be Rs. 3,185-13-0, he considered that double that amount should be allowed. But as he had to take accounts up to the day of the suit, on the latter day the principal sum due was Rs. 3,338-...
Tag this Judgment!Govindlal Bansilal and anr. Vs. Bansilal Motilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1921
Reported in: 77Ind.Cas.934
Norman Macleod, 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. I to 5 and defendants Nos. 8 and 9, and 1hat 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 part of the properties both moveable and immoveable are situte and the cause of action has arisen in Bombay within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and the plaintiff submits that, with leave granted under...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Eknath Kaulgi Vs. Bhausaheb Bhawanrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1921
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR1037
Fawcett, J.1. The Subordinate Judge has held that the application in effect asks him to vary the prescribed mode of satisfaction under1 the decree on the award and that as an executing Court he cannot do so. It seems to me that he is justified in that view; for the award decree clearly contemplates satisfaction by payment of an annual sum out of the profits of certain mortgaged lands, whereas the Court is now asked to recover the full amount due by attachment and sale of other property in the hands of the mortgagor or his legal representatives.2. The appellant's pleader relies on the provision in the decree that, if the payment should fall short of Rs. 125 in any particular year, then the mortgagor should make good the amount from his other private resources. It is open to question whether that particular provision is a valid one, in view of the decisions in Havgovandas v. Mohanbhai (1900) 2 Bom L.R. 31 and Damodar v. Vyanku I.L.R (1906) Bom. 224: 9 Bom. L.R. 199 to the effect that no ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Eknath Kaulgi and anr. Vs. Bhausaheb Bhavanrao Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1921
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom345
Fawcett, J.1. The Subordinate Judge has held that the application in effect asks him to vary the prescribed mode of satisfaction under the decree on the aw and that as an executing Court he cannot do so. It seems to me that he is justified in that view; for the award decree clearly contemplates satisfaction by payment of an annual sum out of the profits of certain mortgaged lands, whereas the Court is now asked to recover the full amount due by attachment and sale of other property in the hands of the mortgagor or his legal representatives.2. The appellant's pleader relies on the provision in the decree that, if the payment should fall short of Rs. 125 in any particular year, then the mortgagor should make good the amount from his other private resources. It is open to question whether that particular provision is a valid one, in view of the decisions in Hargovandas v. Mohanbhai (1900) 2 Bom. L.R. 225 and Damodar v. Vyanku (1906) 31 Bom. 244 to the effect that no money decree against a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›