Mumbai Court November 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.
Sandu Valji Vs. Bhikchand Surajmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom473; (1923)25BOMLR381; 75Ind.Cas.118
Marten, J.1. The point on the appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellants are entitled to treat Survey No. 76 as still subject to the mortgage of January 24, 1906. The respondents contend that as the result of a contract arrived at in 1908 it was agreed that they should acquire the equity of redemption in Survey No. 76 but should re-convey the other property originally comprised in the mortgage, viz., Survey No. 894.2. The controversy has mainly turned on the document of March 23, 1908, Exhibit No 34, which is alleged to evidence this agreement. The appellants contend that it is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, and alternatively, that, on the true construction of it, it only amounted to putting the defendants in possession of one of the plots whereas up to that date they had not obtained possession of either plot.3. As to its admissibility in evidence, one main question is whether the document amounts to a transfer of the equity of redemption, or whether on its true co...
Shriniwas Sarjerao Sholapurkar Vs. Narayanrao Navlojirao Nimbalkar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom379; 76Ind.Cas.551
1. The plaintiff filed this suit asking for a declaration that the decree passed by the Trial Court in Suit No. 270 of 1908, and confirmed by the District Court in Appeal No. 179 of 1910, was null and void a sit had been obtained as a result of fraud. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The, lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and passed a decree for the plaintiff. The appeal in this Court was summarily dismissed but was admitted under the Letters Patent and we have now heard the arguments. The facts would appear at first sight somewhat, complicated, but for the purposes of our judgment they can be set out very shortly. One Balvantrao died many years ago leaving a widow Gopikabai. She alienated various portions of her husband's property. Then she adopted or purported to adopt one Venkatesh. Gopikabai and Venkatesh both died in 1901. Venkatesh died leaving a son called Balvant. There a ter Shriniwas, the reversionary heir of the husband of Gopikabai, brought a number of suits again...
Vithalrao Sheshgirirao Moktesar Vs. Vithalrao Sondekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom244; (1923)25BOMLR151
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Kg. 532-6-5 from the defendants as balance still due on a promissory note dated October 17, 1917, passed by defendant No. 1 to plaintiff with future interest and costs, In the trial Court a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff against alt the defendants. Defendant No. 2 appealed. By the directions of the District Judge his name was scored out of the decree, The question at issue was whether in a suit on a promissory note signed by the first defendant alone in his own name the second defendant could be joined as a party. Various cases have been cited in which questions have arisen whether a member of a joint Hindu family could be held liable in a suit filed on a promissory note signed by one of the members of the family as manager in his own name, Reliance was placed by the appellant on the case of Krishna Ayyar v. Krishnasami Ayyar. I.L.R. (1900) Mad. 597 Though it was held that all the members of the undivided family we...
Ramchandra Laxman Vs. Balbhim Babaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom287; (1923)25BOMLR211
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit property as the mortgagor. The original mortgage was passed by his father to his uncle Dada acting benami for the plaintiff's father. Dada mortgaged the plaint land with possession to one Bala in 1884. Dada brought a suit for redemption in 1892 under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and on taking account it was found that nothing was due under the mortgage and, therefore, a decree was passed directing that he should get possession. In appeal this decree was set aside. It was found that Rs. 310-9-0 were due to the mortgagee, and unless the sum was paid the possession was to be given back to the mortgagee. The amount was not paid and an order was made restoring the land to the possession of the mortgagee. It may be noticed that but for the erroneous order of the trial Court the land would never have got into the possession of the mortgagor. We may take it, therefore, that on the final order of the app...
Shankar Sakharam Jagdale Vs. Ratanji Premji Shet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom441; (1923)25BOMLR328; 79Ind.Cas.226
Marten, J.1. The question in this case is whether, notwithstanding the lapse of time and the conduct of the parties, it is still open to the defendant to enforce the compromise embodied in the consent decree (Exhibit 28) in this suit.The plaintiff and defendant are adjoining owners, and it would appear that before the commencement of this litigation the western wall of the plaintiff's building was a mud wall, and that the eastern wall of the defendant's building adjoined it. The defendant wanted to rebuild his house and in the course of that rebuilding the plaintiff alleged that the defendant encroached upon his, the plaintiff's, rights. Thereupon this suit was brought for an injunction and other relief.2. On January 29, 1920, the parties arrived at 'the compromise in question which is embodied in Exhibit 28. To indicate very briefly the nature of the point this Court has to decide, I will state that there is a provision in that compromise for the payment by the defendant of a certain ...
Bai Mani Vs. Ranchodlal Amritlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom214; (1923)25BOMLR147
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was an application by Bai Mani daughter of one Keshavlal Ranchhod under Order XXI, Rule 100, Civil Procedure Code, complaining that she had been wrongfully dispossessed of certain property, and claiming that possession should be restored to her. The facts leading up to this application are set out in the judgment of the trial Court The house belonged to one Mulchand Haribhai. It was mortgaged with possession for more than Rs. 3,500 to one Amritlal. A money decree was passed against Mulchand, and in execution of that money decree this house was sold subject to the mortgage rights of Amritlal, and was purchased by the opponent Ranchodlal Amritlal. Bai Mani claimed either to be mortgagee or to have a mortgage lien to the extent of Rs. 500, and she applied to the Court to have her mortgage lien for Rs. 500 notified in the sale proclamation, but her application was not granted, so she appealed to the District Court. Pending that appeal the house was sold and...
A.E. Salayjee Vs. Fatima Bibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR301
Phillimore, J.1. The dispute in this case arises in the course of the administration of the estate of a wealthy Mahomedan who died on February 25, 1907, having left a will dated June 15, 1903, which was admitted to probate on March 18, 1908. By that will he left his only son, the defendant in this suit and the present appellant, his executor, and he gave him certain powers and professed to entitle him to a commission of ten per cent, on the proceeds of the sale of all his estate. That provision is twice over expressed, but substantially the effect is the same on the two occasions. He also, instead of reserving, as by Mahomedan law he could, one-third of his estate for his general disposition, reserved somewhat less-one fourth, and with regard to that fourth he directed the executor, whom he described also as 'executor and trustee' to pay certain charitable legacies amounting to Rs. 13,700, directing at the same time that none of his heirs or any other persons should be entitled to have...
Ganesh Narhar Joshi Vs. Dattatraya Pandurang Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom239; (1923)25BOMLR144
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 1,445-11-0 from the defendant being the balance on. two promissory notes with future interest and costs. The lower Court passed a decree for Rs. 580-6-6 from the second defendant and the estate of defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 on the one note, and Rs. 865-4-6 from the second defendant on the other note. The chief contest was with regard to the liability on the note of November 12, 1913, on which it was said the balance due was Rs. 865-4-6. An issue was raised whether the claim on the promissory note of 1913 was in time. The learned Judge held that the claim was in time as against the second defendant and not against defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4. In appeal the claim on this note as against the second defendant was also rejected. Now it is admitted that the second defendant signed this promissory note on November 12, 1913, for Rs. 1,500 with interest at six per cent. Payments were made of Rs. 90 on February 2, 1913, Rs. 200 on Janu...
Mulchand Jekisondas Vs. Bai Rukshmani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom216; (1923)25BOMLR189
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Ranchhoddas died seven years back leaving a lunatic son by name Chimanlal and a widow. He left a will in which he stated after setting out his property:So long as I am living I am heir and owner of the said property, the same I may consume, enjoy, use or do what I like. Rut if by the will of God I die, on my death I appoint my wife Bai Rukhi alias Juma to be the owner of my property. Therefore after my death my wife is to take ray property into her possession with full authority, and is to perform the funeral and obsequious ceremonies with respect; to my death. And after doing the same my wife Bai Rukhi alias Juma is to consume, enjoy or do what she like with respect to what remains out of my property, and after the death of my wife, my son Chimanlal is the owner of my estate, the said Chimanlal may do what he likes with respect to my property. Therein none of my relatives, friends or other persons have a right or claim.2. Chimanlal died before the widow...
Matti Venkanna and Eleven ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom257
Wallace, J.1. The only point raised in this petition is that the conviction under Sections 143 and 447 of the Indian Penal Cede was illegal since the offence under Section 447, Indian Penal Cede, was compounded.2. It appears that on 5th July 1920 a compromise petition was put into the lower Court signed by first petitioner (first accused) and prosecution witnesses 1 and 2, prosecution witness 1 being the alleged owner of the field on which the alleged trespass took place. The case was being prosecuted by the police and the compromise petition was rejected by the lower Court as the offence under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code is not compoundable.3. The common object charged against the accused as members of the unlawful assembly is the criminal trespass aforesaid. Petitioner contends that since the parties had a legal right to compound that trespass, such a composition has the effect of annulling the common object charged, and therefore the charge under Section 143, Indian Penal C...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »