Mumbai Court January 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mahamadsaheb Ibrahimsaheb Vs. Tilokchand Abheerchand Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR373; 66Ind.Cas.764
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff tiled this suit to recover possession of the two open sites described in the plaint. He alleged dispossession by the defendant unlawfully about three years prior to the suit. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff was not the owner of the plaint property; that he had never been in possession or enjoyment of it; that the defendant had been in possession for many years as owner; that the suit was time-barred; and that the cause of action did not accrue in 1913. The main issues were: (1) Does the plaintiff prove that the plots in suit were purchased by him at the auction sale in 1893; and (2) Is it proved that the plaintiff was in possession within twelve years before the suit The first issue was found by the trial Court in the affirmative, the second, in the negative. The result was that the suit was dismissed.2. In appeal the learned Judge was of opinion that the evidence of the witnesses on both sides was unworthy of credit. But the plaintiff havi...
ishrappa Ganap Hegde Vs. Krishna Putta Shankar Hegde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR428; 67Ind.Cas.833
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a partition of the plaint strip of land and separation of his two-thirds share claiming title under a sale by defendants Nos. 3 and 4 of their two-thirds interest to the plaintiff in the suit property. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were members of a joint family consisting of themselves together with defendants Nos. 2 and 5, who were jointly interested to the extent of one-third. After the sale by defendants Nos. 3 and 4 to the plaintiff, the second defendant as manager of the family sold the plaint strip to the first defendant.2. In the trial Court the first defendant endeavoured to prove that there had been a sale to him of the plaint strip by defendant No. 2 prior to the date of the sale to the plaintiff of two-thirds of the property by defendants Nos 3 and 4. This issue was found against him.3. Then the first defendant claimed that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were estopped from selling the plaint strip or an interest therein to the plaintiff, and...
Nagabhatta Timmanbhatta Boppanhalli Vs. Nagappa Subbaya Havik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom62; (1922)24BOMLR423; 67Ind.Cas.857
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover from the second defendant the price of the materials of the house mentioned in the plaint, and also to recover possession of the house site and Hittal etc., appertaining thereto, the said properties having been purchased by defendant No. 2 at a Court sale held at the instance of defendant No. 1 in Darkhast No. 295 of 1914. The suit was decreed in the trial Court, but was dismissed in appeal. The facts, as set out by the learned District Judge, show that one Ramayya, the husband of the plaintiff, owned eight properties. He mortgaged seven of them to one Venkata Bhatta, and four years later he mortgaged all the eight properties to one Tammanna Bhatta. In 1910, the plaintiff filed a suit to redeem, this latter mortgage, and in her plaint she recited the fact of the former mortgage, but by mistake in describing the property mortgaged to Venkata Bhatta, she included the eighth property, which was only subject to the second mortgage. In th...
T.B. Ramchandra Rao Vs. A.N.S. Ramchandra Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR963
Buckmaster, J.1. On August 6, 1858, Ramajee Bavajee Pandit, who died on August 10, 1858, executed a deed of settlement of all his moveable and immoveable properties. It is prefaced by a statement that he had adopted Panchapikes, the second son of Mahasubd Rajaram, and, after various gifts and dispositions which are not material, it continued in these terms:-Out of the remaining property, after deducting the above, my adopted son, to whom I have given the name of Bavajee Pandit, shall bo entitled to and enjoy half of the property. Out of the remaining half of the property these two persons, namely, (my) senior wife Sowbhagiavathy Kamatchi and junior wife Sowbhagiavathy Thulja shall take half and half.2. In 1894 one acre and 74 cent. of the land so given, and then in the possession of Thulja Boyee, was acquired by the Government. The usual proceedings for determining the amount of compensation appear to have taken place, and no dispute arose as to the award, but a question did arise as b...
Panna Lal Vs. Nihal Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR971
Viscount Haldane, J.1. The Luxmi Company, Limited, which was defendant in the suit out of which this appeal arises, but which is no party to the appeal, was a company trading at Ambala and elsewhere as bankers, cotton merchants and general commission agents. It obtained certain advances from the respondents, the Marwar Bank. These advances were made under various circumstances, but at the material date with which their Lordships are concerned it was necessary to obtain some security for the assurance Of the bank, and accordingly on December 28, 1908, the appellants, Lala Panna Lal and Lala Basheshar Nath, and one Lala Ganga Ram executed a security bond, dated December 28, 1908, in favour of the manager of the Marwar Bank. Lala Ganga Ram and the appellant Lala Panna Lal were directors of the Luxmi Company; the other appellant, Lala Basheshar Nath, was manager of one of the branches of the Luxmi Company, and was an alternative director, that is to say, on certain occasions he acted as a ...
Dhundiraj Balkrishna Phalinkar Vs. Ramchandra Gangadhar Kale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR437
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the order of the lower appellate Court restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiffs' Bhangi and Bhisti from entering by the door X in the map Exhibit 20 and thence passing over the defendant's back-yard and entering the plaintiffs' privy at point A is right.2. Defendant's house adjoins the plaintiffs' house to the west There is a lane to the west of the defendant's house and it is admitted that the plaintiffs have a right of way over the defendant's back-yard, so that the sweeper may have access to the plaintiffs' privy. The defendant bought his house in 1915. Until then the sweeper had passed through the door X but in 1916 the defendant made certain alterations. He opened a door at the southern end of his wall and after reserving a passage of about three feet he built a wall to the north, so as to reserve for himself the rest of the back-yard. It cannot be said that it would be in any way more inconvenie...
Dhundiraj Balkrishna Phalinkar Vs. Ramchandra Gangadhar Kale and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.413
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the order of the lower Appellate Court restraining the defendant from obstructing the plaintiffs' bhangi and bhisti from entering by the door X in the map Exhibit 20 and thence passing over the defendant's back yard and entering the plaintiffs privy at point A is right.2. Defendant's house adjoins the plaintiffs' house to the west. There is a lane to the west of the defendant's house and it is admitted that the plaintiffs have a right of way over the defendant's back yard, so that the sweeper may have access to the plaintiffs privy. The defendant bought his house in 1915. Until then the sweepar had passed through the door X but in 1916 the defendant made certain alterations. He opened a door at the southern end of his wall and after reserving a passage of about three feet he built a wall to the north, so as to reserve for himself the rest of the backyard. It cannot be said that it would be in any way more inconvenient...
Vithaldas Gulabdas Seth Vs. the Hyderabad Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom24; (1922)24BOMLR328; 67Ind.Cas.326
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit against the defendant company to recover the amount payable to him by way of dividends in respect of the 7 2nd and 73rd dividends payable on the 5th February 1920 and 19th April 1920, respectively.2. In their written statement the defendants claimed that they were entitled to recover damages from the firms of Vithaldas Venkatlal and Trikamdas Purshottamdas in respect of certain cotton contracts. The joint family of Gulabdas Haridas, of which the plaintiff was the manager, was a partner in these two firms and was liable to pay these damages. Reference was then made in paragraph 7 to Articles 13, 130 and 131 of the Articles of Association. Articles 13 and 130 had nothing to do with plaintiff's claim; but Article 131, entitling the Directors to deduct from the dividend or bonus payable to any shareholder all sums of money due from him to the Company, would be in point, if certain facts were proved. The defendant company submitted that b...
Narayan Laxman Chandvadkar Vs. Gopalrao Trimbak Chandavadkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR414; 67Ind.Cas.850
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. Both the Courts have found in this case that the promise to pay the annuity was the consideration for the agreement to give the boy in adoption. That would be sufficient to invalidate the agreement; and we need not consider the question whether the payment of the annuity, if there had been good consideration for it, could be enforced against the heirs of Ganpatrao, although we may point out that the two decisions in Balkrishna v. Janardana (1904) 6 Bom. 642 and Babubhai v. Beharilal (1905) 7 Bom. L.R. 686 appear to be in conflict, and may require to be considered hereafter. The appeal, therefore, will be dismissed with costs....
Keshav Raghunath Joshi Vs. Gafurkhan Daimkhan Bubere
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR319; 67Ind.Cas.308
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover by redemption possession of the plaint property. The property had been mortgaged with possession in 1891 by one Ganpat Bhiva Chavan for himself and as guardian of his minor nephew Krishna Babaji Chavan to the first defendant's father Martand. The equity of redemption eventually came to two girls, Kondi and Niri, from whom the plaintiff purchased in 1918.2. In 1902, Martand sold the property to the second defendant purporting to be the owner thereof, and the second defendant has since been in possession.3. It is clear then that any suit against the second defendant to recover possession of the suit property must fall under Article 134 of the Indian Limitation Act if it is not filed within twelve years from the date of the transfer. But the appellant wishes to rely on the fact that within a few months of the transfer, the second defendant acquired the knowledge that Martand was a mortgagee and not an owner. Defendant No. 2 stated that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »