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.
Holleppa Kallappa Mayappanavar Vs. Irappa Giri Mallappa Badiger and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom843
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit for partition of certain lands and houses and moveables at Shirhatti in Athni Taluka. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were his bhaubands. The other defendants were alleged to be alienees of some of the lands. Defendant No. 4 did not appear at the trial. The suit was decreed. Thereafter defendant No. 4 got the decree set aside to the extent of the land Survey No. 156, which is said to have been transferred to him by the sale deed, Exhibit 115, in 1913. The plaintiff alleged that the transfer was really a mortgage, and that, therefore, the land was still owned by his family and was partible.2. In the trial Court the issue was whether the sale relied on by the defendant No. 4 was really a mortgage? It does not seem to have been suggested there that that issue could not be tried, or that Section 10 A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act was not applicable to the case. But in First appeal that point was taken. The learned Judge said:The ...
Nanchi Kom Khatal Md. Ghori Saudagaor Vs. Shititi Kulsambi Kom Sayad a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom42; 79Ind.Cas.791
Macleod, J.1. Strictly speaking, the finding of the lower Court that the plaintiff was only entitled to redeem 2 acres and 34 gunthas area out o Survey No. 1075, as mentioned in the mortgage of 1901 to the defendant, was correct. But it cannot be denied that the plaintiff was entitled on a partition between himself and the other sharers to 4 acres and 7 gunthas out of Survey No, 1075 and in 1917 she seems to have put the defendants into possession as mortgagees of more than was specifically mortgaged by the deed of 1901 with the result that the defendants had been in possession of that extra land not as if it were an accretion to the property in the original mortgage but as a substitution through mistake: obviously, the plaintiff in a suit for possession would be entitled to recover that property. There is no reason why in second appeal we should not do justice by directing that, on the plaintiff's paying the decretal amount within six months from the, date the record goes back to the ...
Arab Ali Khan Vs. Mahmud Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR951
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated November 10, 1915, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which reversed a judgment and decree, dated April 30, 1913, of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore.2. The action out of which the appeal has arisen was an ejectment brought by Arab Ali Khan, the appellant, to recover possession of certain property, described in a list attached to the plaint. The defendants filed separate written statements in the usual course. In addition to denying the plaintiff's claim, they pleaded (1) that the transaction embodied in a certain partition deed, dated March 13, 1889, was, on the part of his grand uncle Panah Ali Khan, a benami transaction; (2) that it was never acted upon or given effect to, and was void; and (3) that the plaintiff never had possession of the property in dispute and that his claim was barred by limitation and adverse possession. Several issues were framed upon these pleadings by the Additional Su...
Anna Narayan Pavgi Vs. Madhyama Sthititila Paraspara and C. Mandali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR313; 67Ind.Cas.364
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit against ten defendants to recover a sum of Rs. 4,617-4-0. A decree was passed against the first defendant only by the trial Court, and an appeal against that decree was dismissed by the District Judge. The plaintiff has now filed a second appeal against that decree, and claims to value his appeal as if he was suing merely for a declaration, namely, that the decree passed by the trial Court was binding against the other defendants also. This contention seems to have found favour with the Taxing Officer, who relied upon the decision in Zinnatunnessa Khatun v. Girindra Nath Mukerjee I.L.R. (1903) Cal. 788 which has nothing whatever to do with the point raised by the appellant in this case. There the suit was filed originally for a declaration that a certain decree was ineffectual and inoperative against the plaintiffs.2. In this case there is a money suit against a large number of defendants, and the plaintiff having only got a decree a...
Emperor Vs. Laxman Natha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR380; 66Ind.Cas.994
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Sholapur asking the High Court to exercise the powers conferred by Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code with regard to an order of costs under Section 344, Criminal Procedure Code, passed by the Second Class Magistrate of Malsiras. That order was that the expenses incurred by the 10th accused in bringing a pleader from Pandharpur a distance of thirty-two miles and going back the same distance and also his pleader's fees which had been settled by the parties should be paid by the complainant.2. Now I could understand that if an adjournment takes place for which the complainant is solely to blame, then an order could be made that the complainant should pay any costs which may have been incurred by the accused. But in this case, as the District Magistrate points out, the complainant was not at fault as the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon police report. The Police Sub-Inspector was responsibl...
Emperor Vs. Atmaram Shamji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR384
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The accused was convicted by the Special Magistrate, Third Class, under Section 155 of the Bombay District Municipal Act of having disobeyed a lawful direction given by a written notice issued by the Dholka Municipality to remove an otla. The facts are that at least since October 1919 this otla was in existence. The Municipality, on the 17th December 1920, sent a notice to the accused:-You are informed by notice under Section 122 of the District Municipal Act that you by making an otla, at the side-wall of your house in the said street have encroached on Government land. Therefore within seven days of the receipt of this notice you should remove the said otla. If you neglect to do so, steps will be taken according to law.2. The otla was not removed, and so the proper step according to law which the Municipality should have taken was to remove the otla themselves and charge the accused with the cost of the removal. Instead of proceeding in that manner, as provided...
Atmaram Shamji Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom30; 66Ind.Cas.817
1. The accused was convicted by the Special Magistrate, Third Glass, under Section 155 of the Bombay District Municipal Act of having disobeyed a lawful direction given by a written notice issued by the Dholka Municipality to remove an otla. The fasts are that at least since October 1919 this otla was in existence The Municipality, on the 17th December 1920, Bent a notice to the accusedYou are informed by notice under Section 122 of the District Municipal Act that yon, by making an otla at the aide-wall of your house in the said street, have encroached on Government land. Therefore, within seven days of the receipt of this notice yon should remove the said otla, If you neglect to do so, steps frill be taken according to law.2. The otla was not removed, and so the proper step according to law which the Municipality should have taken was to remove the otla themselves and charge the accused with the costs of the removal. Instead of proceeding in that manner, as provided by Section 122, th...
Vali Mahomed Hamad Vs. G.i.P. Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR316; 67Ind.Cas.366
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This was a suit filed by the consignee of certain goods which were delivered to the South Indian Railway Company, to be carried from Sevoy Petoy, a station on the South Indian Railway to Jalgaon, a station on the defendant Railway Company. Admittedly when the goods arrived at Jalgaon, the oil of fourteen tins had been removed and lost to the consignee. The consignor had signed a risk note in the Form B, and so the Q.I.P. Railway Company would not be liable for any such loss, unless it could be shown to have occurred owing to the wilful neglect of their servants, provided the goods were carried in accordance with the contract of carriage. It was proved that the waggon containing the plaintiff's goods instead of travelling along the shortest route via Dhond and Manmad was carried to Kalyan, and thence to Jalgaon. There was evidence that the Station Master of Kalyan had to put fresh seals on the waggon containing the plaintiff's goods and that would point to the los...
Kashibhai Kalidas Patel Vs. Vallavbhai Wagjibhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR305; 67Ind.Cas.356
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain various perpetual injunctions against the defendant. The first was to restrain the defendant from discharging rain-water on to plaintiff's land at a particular place. The second was an injunction to the defendant to remove the projection over the khadki wall and the suit land. The third was to restrain the defendant from making the intended dattan (cess-pool).2. The plaintiff succeeded in both the Courts in getting an injunction restraining the defendant from making the intended dattan, the remaining portions of the claim being rejected. The lower Court had come to the conclusion that because the plaintiff had allowed the defendant's eaves to project and rain-water to be discharged over his land for nearly twenty years, he was thereby barred from coming to a Court of Equity for relief. The learned appellate Judge went further than this and held that the plaintiff had lost his title to the laud up to the line of the defendant's project...
Balvant Rangnath Vs. Bala Malu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR308; 67Ind.Cas.360
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover possession of the suit land from the first three defendants, or, in the alternative, to recover Rs. 417-9-0 from the fourth defendant. The fourth defendant had obtained a mortgage decree on the 15th August 1913 in Suit No. 696 of 1910 against defendants Nos. 5 and 6, Sakharam and Tukaram. In the execution of that decree, the suit land was sold by auction on the 3rd March 1917. The plaintiff purchased if for Rs. 401 and his sale was confirmed in the 23rd May 1917. He says that he got possession of the land unobstructed, but the defendants allege that only symbolical possession was obtained and the plaintiff was never in actual possession or Vahivat of the land. On the 28th August 1.917, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 asserted their right to be in possession of the land, whereupon the plaintiff filed Suit No. 28 of 1917 in the Mamlatdar's Court which he lost. So he had to bring this suit.2. In the trial Court it was found that de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »