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.
Kottal Kunhaltkutti Haji Vs. Milkkaravida Kottal Kunhamayan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom567
Schwabe, C.J.1. In this case the District Munsif and the lower Appellate Court have awarded to the plaintiffs maintenance, the lower Appellate Court at rather a higher rate than the District Munsif. The plaintiffs are the junior members of a tarwad. The first defendant is the karnavan of the tar wad. The second defendant is the next to him for that position. The decree has been made for arrears of maintenance, at the rate which has been found by the Subordinate Judge to be the proper rate, personally against the karnavan in the following terms;that the first defendant personally and as karnavan of his tarwad do pay.2. This form of decree does not seem to me to be right. I see no reason for a personal decree against the karnavan which would involve the right of the junior members of this tarwad to arrest him if he did not pay forthwith, although it may be he may have none of the property in his hands available for immediate payment. We have had several decrees, which have come before th...
Parthasarathi Aiyangar and Two ors. Vs. Doraisawmi Naicker and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom823
Spencer, J.1. The question referred to us is:Whether a tenant in occupation of trust lands belonging to a temple or mosque can enforce a compulsory sale under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act and require the temple or mosque to deliver the land to him on a valuation to be made by the Court.2. There is no difficulty to my mind in including the trustees of temples, mosques and other religious endowments, within the definition of 'landlord' in Section 2 of Madras Act III of 1922, as they certainly are persons entitled to collect the rent of the land on behalf of another person. A greater difficulty arises when we come to consider Section 9. This section provides for the compulsory sale by a landlord of land in the possession of a tenant in the City of Madras from which the tenant is sought to be ejected in a suit instituted under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act. The explanation to this section defines 'land' as:The interest of the landlord in the land and all othe...
Basangowda Virupaxgowda Vs. Irgowdati Kallangowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom276; (1923)25BOMLR293; 73Ind.Cas.196
Marten, J.1. The question on this first appeal is whether the interest of Irawa, a Hindu widow, under the agreement Exhibit 28 can be attached in execution of the decree against her and others in this suit. The learned Judge following the decision of Sir Charles Sargent and Mr. Justice Nanabhai in Diwali v. Apaji Ganesh I.L.R. (1886) 10 Bom.342 has held it cannot be attached. The appellants seek to distinguish that decision, because it was before the Transfer of Property Act came into operation in this Presidency. Alternatively they say it was wrong.2. Now Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code states what property is liable to attachment or sale in execution, viz., 'lands...and save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property... belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit,...Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely,...(n) a ri...
Basangowda BIn Virupaxagowda and anr. Vs. Irgowdatti Kom Kallangowda a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR47Bom597
Marten, J.1. The question on this first appeal is whether the interest o! Irawa, a Hindu widow, under the agreement, Exhibit 28, can be attached in execution of the decree against her and others in this suit. The learned Judge following the decision of Sir Charles Sargent and Mr. Justice Nanabhai in Diwali v. Apaji Ganesh (1886) 10 Bom. 342 has held it cannot be attached. The appellants seek to distinguish that decision, because it was before the Transfer of Property Act came into operation in this Presidency. Alternatively they say it was wrong.2. Now Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code states what property is liable to attachment of sale in execution, viz., 'lands...and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property...belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit.... Provided that the following particulars shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, viz...(n) a right to ...
Appaya Padadaya Guru Mahadevayya Vs. Lakhamgowda Basavanprabhu Sardesa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom176; (1923)25BOMLR77
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think that considering the judgment of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Manilal v. Banubai granting special leave to appeal after a certificate had been refused by this Court 23 Bom. L. R. 374 we must grant a certificate in this case. The order made therein involved a question respecting the compound and the well which has now been found by the lower Court to be worth more than Rs. 5,000, and, therefore, that must be the value to be taken when applying the provisions of Section 110, Civil procedure Code, although the value of the appellant's interest appears to be very much less, We think the rule must be made absolute and a certificate must be granted on the ground that the final order involves directly or indirectly some claim or question relating to or respecting property worth over Rs. 10,000 in value. Costs will be costs in the appeal....
Tirthdas Ghanshamdas Bajaj Vs. Sadhusingh Udhasingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR313; 73Ind.Cas.296
Shah J.1. This suit has been heard ex parte as a short cause.2. As I felt some difficulty in granting reliefs (b) and (c) claimed in the plaint, I heard further arguments both on the question of jurisdiction and as to the effect of the agreement of December 10, 1918 to execute a mortgage.3. As regards the question of jurisdiction I do not feel any difficulty now. I have dealt with this question in the judgment delivered in Jasraj v. Akubai (1922) O.C.J. .4. As regards the agreement, I am satisfied that it cannot be used for the purpose of holding that there is a charge on the property mentioned therein. As an agreement to effect a mortgage it would be admissible in evidence : but if it is relied upon as justifying a declaration as to charge as distinguished from a mortgage, it seems to me that it ceases to be a document merely creating a right to obtain another document, but becomes in effect a document operating to create a charge in future 'when the declaration sought is made'.5. I h...
Jasraj Fooaji Vs. Akubai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Bom419; (1924)26BOMLR539
Shah, J.1. In this suit a preliminary question as to jurisdiction has been raised on behalf of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who have filed their written statements, though the point is not raised in their written statements.2. It is urged that as the property mortgaged is situated outside the limits of the original jurisdiction of the High Court this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit on a mortgage bond relating to such property. In the present case the property is situated at Karachi and the defendants live at Poona. The debt is payable at Bombay or Poona or Karachi at the choice of the mortgagee under the bond and for the purpose of the present point it must be assumed that the debt is payable in Bombay and that apart from the mortgage the suit to recover the debt would be within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is conceded that the contention that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit to enforce the mortgage in question is opposed to the ruling in Holkar v....
Arunachala thevan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom162
Krishnan, J.1. This is an application by the complainant in Calendar Case No. 422 of 1920 on the file of the second class Magistrate of Tirumangalam to hare an order passed by the Subdivisional Magistrate of Usilampatti, who heard the appeal against the conviction in that calendar case, regarding the disposal of two bulls which formed the subject matter of the complaint, set aside.2. The complainant's case was that the bulls were entrusted to the accused, and that he committed breach of trust in respect of them. The accused was convicted in the first Court, and the bulls were ordered by that Magistrate to be handed over to the complainant under Section 517, Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal the conviction was reversed by the Subdivisional Magistrate, but apparently he forgot to pass any orders regarding the bulls at the time. A month afterwards on a petition filed by one Vellachami Thevan, the person from whom the bulls were seized, he passed an order directing that the two bulls shou...
Raghunath Vithal Bhat Vs. Purnanand Saraswati Swami
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom358; (1923)25BOMLR207
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal raises a question on which there does not appear to be any direct authority. The facts are simple. Fifty years ago a Guru owned a temple at Sadashivgad and he appointed a certain person as a priest to perform 'Puja' and other services to the deity on receipt of a certain quantity of paddy. The present plaintiff is the third, Guru in order of descent. The defendant is the son of the original Pujari who had two sons, the defendant and Dattatraya the plaintiff's case being that Dattatraya having a half interest in the office of Pujari transferred or surrendered it to him. It has been held in this Court in Mancharam v. Pran-shankar I.L.R. (1882) 6 Bom. 298 that hereditary offices, whether religious or secular, are no doubt treated by the Hindu text writers as naturally indivisible; but modern custom, whether or not it be strictly in accordance with ancient law, has sanctioned such partition as can be had of such property by means of the performance o...
Gangaram Balkrishna Sawant Vs. Vasudeo Dattatraya Kirloskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom203; (1923)25BOMLR268; 73Ind.Cas.912
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit for partition of property alleged to be joint family property, claiming one-tenth share therein. The property originally no doubt was the joint family property of the Kirloskars. The pedigree of the family appears at p. 23 of the print. It shows that several generations back the family had been split up into two branches, and undoubtedly, for years, various members of each branch have been alienating portions of the family property as if they were separately owned. Apparently the allegation of the defendants who contest the plaintiff's suit is that there was a partition of the family property so far back as 1823. The evidence shows that the whole of the family property has got into the hands of strangers. The plaintiff seeks to set aside the alienations made by various members of the family, and to get back one-tenth of what was originally the family property on the ground that the property is still joint, and that he is entitle...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »