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.
Khatubai Vs. Mahomed Haji Abu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR127
Dunedin, J.1. The present appeal relates to the succession of one, Haji Abu Haji Habib, who died intestate at Bombay on November 30, 1914. The contest is between a daughter, the plaintiff and appellant, on the one hand, and a son and other members of the family, the defendant and respondents, on the other, and depends entirely upon what is the law of succession to be applied to the property of the deceased.2. Now, the deceased was a Mahomedan. Accordingly the Indian Succession Act does not apply, and if nothing more were known it would be obvious that the ordinary Mahomedan law of succession would fall to be applied, which would mean that the appellant would succeed. But the deceased was not what may be termed an ordinary Mahomedan. There are among the Mahomedans certain groups whose ancestors were Hindus and professed the Hindu religion, and were then converted to Islam. Among these groups may be reckoned, as is shown by decided cases, Khojas, Suni Borahs, Molesalam Girasias, Cutchi M...
Shripatprasad Beharilalji Acharyashri Vs. Lakshmidas Dungarbhai Barot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1924Bom193; (1923)25BOMLR747; 84Ind.Cas.808
Marten, J.1. His Lordship, after narrating the history of the foundation, proceeded : I have dwelt on all these matters at some length not merely because they afford an answer to the appellant (the Acharya) out of his own words, but because they show a vital flaw in the appellant's title or claim to the properties themselves as private properties. All or practically all the suit properties were acquired before Laxmiprasad's deposition. If then it be said that they were the private property of Laxmiprasad, the appellant can only claim them in some way through Laxmiprasad. But Laxmiprasad released all his claims in the properties to the general assembly in return for a money payment. This release was not to the appellant. It was made before the appellant was even installed on the Gadi. Nor is the appellant the next of kin of Laxmiprasad. As I have already pointed out, Laxmiprasad left a minor son who endeavoured unsuccessfully to carry on the High Court Suit No. 365 of 1912.2. Counsel wa...
Ramachandra Sadashiv Sidras Oka Vs. Keshav Dhondu Narvekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom208; 82Ind.Cas.27
Marten, J.1. The point in this appeal is one of the onus of proof as to the date of the death of one Baji. The suit is an ejectment suit. The defendants have been in possession under a Court sale since 1889. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, relies for his title on a conveyance in 1910 by one Dwarkabai, who was a sister of Baji. The suit was brought as long ago as February 1911, and has already been remanded once by the High Court for an amendment of the pleadings. On that amended case, the plaintiff's case is that Annapurnabai, the wife of Baji, was a widow at the date of her death in 1908, and that Dwarka accordingly was a reversioner, and the plaintiff sues in right of Dwarka as reversioner. A further amendment was asked for on the remanded trial, which will be found in paragraph 28 of the judgment of the learned Trial Judge, viz., to add Dwarka as a co-plaintiff. But that amendment was refused.2. Now the plaintiff is suing for possession, and the onus of proof is on him to make ...
Hirachand Motichand Vs. Hansabai Ganpatrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom190; (1923)25BOMLR76
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. A question arises in this appeal which does not appear to have been decided in any reported case. The plaintiff obtained a decree against one Sagunabai. It was an ordinary money decree, and, therefore, he could not seek to execute the decree against the immoveable property of the judgment-debtor who was held to be an agriculturist. But the plaintiff might have applied to the Court under paragraph 2 of Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act to direct the Collector to take possession, according to the terms of that paragraph, of any immoveable property of the judgment-debtor to the possession of which he was entitled, and which in the opinion of the Collector was not required for her support and the support of the members of her family dependent on her. The judgment-debtor having died, this Darkhast was filed against her daughters as her heirs; and it is now contended that the Court has jurisdiction to direct the Collector to take possession of t...
Shrinivas Laxman Naik Vs. Chanbasapagowda Basangowda Gowdur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom201; (1923)25BOMLR203
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was filed by the plaintiffs to recover on a mortgage bond the balance due. The mortgage deed was passed on October 22, 1902. It was for Rs. 1200, and it provided for the payment of Rs. 1200 by twelve annual instalments of Rs. 100 each. In case of default of payment of any one instalment the mortgagors agreed to pay the whole amount remaining due at once. There was a further clause to the effect that the defendants should pay interest at fifteen per cent, on the amount accrued due from the date of default until the date of payment. The defendant only paid Rs. 44 during 1902 and 1903, In 1905 the mortgagee filed Suit No. 173 of 1905 to recover the amount of the first two instalments and obtained a decree for Rs. 180. No evidence was given to show whether anything was paid under the decree. Then the mortgagee waited until May 20, 1917, when he filed this suit for the remaining ten instalments. Two main issues were raised : whether the plaintiffs' suit...
Bapurao Sakharam Karmarkar Vs. Sadhu Bhivba Gholap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom193; (1923)25BOMLR74
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think that the learned Judge was wrong in refusing to entertain the applicant's petition for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him. Under Article 164 of the Indian Limitation Act the defendant had thirty days from the date of the decree, or where the summons was not duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree. The petitioner alleges that the summons had not been duly served, and that he had no knowledge of the decree until execution was levied against him. The plaintiff's reply was that the defendant had knowledge of the decree because he (the plaintiff) had asked two persons to tell him about the decree and asked him to settle. Those two persons were examined on commission. We do not think that their evidence is sufficient to impose knowledge of the decree on the defendant within the meaning of Article 164. We think the words of the Article mean something more than mere knowledge that a decree had been passed in some suit, ...
Bai Balagavri Vs. Motilal Ghelabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom247; (1923)25BOMLR199
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The applicant presented a petition to the Court to be allowed to file her suit in forma pauperis. Objection was taken by the respondent that the applicant was a minor. If she was a minor, then she could not make any application, and the question whether she was a pauper or not could not arise. Unfortunately the Judge having come to the conclusion that the applicant was a minor, also went on to deal with the question whether she was a pauper. Although we think that part of the order which directs that the applicant might bring a suit by her next friend was perfectly correct, we think that the Judge ought not to have directed that proper Court-fees must be paid on such suit and thereby determined the question of pauperism. It is, therefore, necessary for us to express an opinion on the question whether in that decision the Judge was wrong. Under the Explanation to Order XXXIII, rule 1, a person is a 'pauper' when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enab...
Bapurao Sitaram Karmarkar Vs. Sadbu Bhiva Gholap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR47Bom485
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think that the learned Judge was wrong in refusing to entertain the applicant's petition for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him.. Under Article 104 of the Indian Limitation Act the defendant had thirty days from the date of the decree, or where the summons was not duly served, when the applicant had knowledge of the decree. The petitioner alleges that the summons had not been duly served, and that he had no knowledge of the decree until execution was levied against him. The plaintiff's reply was that the defendant had knowledge of the decree because he (the plaintiff) had asked two persons to tell him about the decree and asked him to settle. Those two persons were examined on commission. We do not think that their evidence is sufficient to impose knowledge of the decree on the defendant within the meaning of Article 164 We think the words of the Article mean something more than mere knowledge that a decree had been passed in some suit i...
Bai Balagauri Widow of Hasmanlal Motilal and anr. Vs. Motilal Ghellabh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR47Bom523
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The applicant presented a petition to the Court to be allowed to file her suit in forma pauperis. Objection was taken by the respondent that the applicant was a minor. If she was a minor, then she could not make any application, and the question whether she was a pauper or not could not arise. Unfortunately the Judge having come to the conclusion that the applicant was a minor, also went on to deal with the question whether she was a pauper. Although we think that part of the order which directs that the applicant might bring a suit by her next friend was perfectly correct, we think that the Judge ought not to have directed that proper Court-fees must be paid on such suit and thereby determined the question of pauperism. It is, therefore, necessary for us to express an opinion on the question whether in that decision the Judge was wrong. Under the Explanation to Order XXXIII, Rule 1, a person is a 'pauper' when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enab...
Emperor Vs. Khashaba Tatya Lawand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR43
Marten, J.1. In this case the record and proceedings have been submitted to us under Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code to pass thereon such order as the Court thinks fit. The accused is deaf and dumb and he has been convicted of attempting to commit suicide. His apparent reason for making this attempt is that his brother had refused to partition the lands which they jointly held. The reason given seems an inadequate one. Litigation would seem a more ordinary remedy, but the unhappy condition of this unfortunate man must to my mind weigh very largely in his favour in considering what course we ought to take under the present circumstances.2. As far as the authorities go, in King-Emperor v. Monya (1902) 4 Bom. L.R. 296 the accused was acquitted, as the Court considered that it was not established that he knew the nature of the not committed or that he acted with a dishonest intention. In Emperor v. A Deaf and Dumb Accused (1916) 18 Bom L.R. 553 a deaf and dumb man was convicted ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »