Mumbai Court February 1922 Judgments
Kasturbhai Manibhai Nagarseth Vs. Hiralal D. Nanavati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom23(1); (1922)24BOMLR350
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. We think that in this case a certificate to appeal to His Majesty's Privy Council must be granted. The plaintiff's seek to eject their tenant in order that they may occupy the premises themselves; while the tenant seeks the protection of the Bombay Rent Act. The decree, therefore, allowing possession of the tenancy involves directly a claim or question to or respecting property over Rs. 10,000, as the monthly rent of the premises is Rs. 275 and capitalised at twenty years' purchase the value of the property will be over Rs. 10,000.2. Costs to be costs in the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Dayaram Premji Vs. Bechardas Doongersey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR351; 67Ind.Cas.936
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff, who died pending the hearing of the suit, claimed to set aside a document executed by him on the 6th November 1917, by which he purported to release all his rights as a reversioner in the estate of his deceased brother Virji, in favour of his widow Sunderabai. Really the document of the 6th November 1917 transgressed against the provisions of Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, and, therefore, could not take effect as vesting in the widow the absolute estate in the property left by her husband. She might have disposed of the immoveable property in her life-time, but she had not done so, and, therefore, on her death, the property would go to her nearest reversioner. However Sunderabai made a will apparently thinking that she was absolutely entitled to her husband's estate, and her executor the first defendant resists the plaintiff's claim.2. It was first suggested that the transaction evidenced by the relinquishment deed of 6th November 19...
Tag this Judgment!Chajju Ram Vs. Neki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1238
Viscount Haldane, J.1. This appeal is brought from two judgments of the Chief Court of the Punjab and a decree following on them, which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Hissar. In the litigation out of which the appeal arises the respondents were plaintiffs. They claimed to have validly exercised a right of pre-emption over certain lands which the respondent Mrs. Forbes, who was made a defendant only formally, had sold to the appellant. Into the details of the transaction it is not necessary to enter at great length, for their Lordships are of opinion that the case must be disposed of on a principle governing procedure which will appear presently. It is sufficient to state that Mrs. Forbes sold to the appellant her proprietary rights in the subject-matter of the suit, two villages called Mauza Kagsar and Mauza Jamni Kera, by a deed of sale on October 2, 1912. The price, Rs. 42,000, was paid, and the appellant took possession. Shortly afterwards the respondents other than M...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal D. Nanavati Vs. Kasturbhai Manibhai Nagarseth and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1922
Reported in: 67Ind.Cas.938
1. We think that in this case a certificate to appeal to His Majesty's Privy Council most be granted. The plaintiffs seek to eject their tenant in order that they may occupy the premises themselves, while the tenant seeks the protection of the Bombay Rent Act. The decree, therefore, allowing possession of the tenancy involves directly a claim or question to or respecting property over Rs. 10,000, as the monthly rent of the premises is Rs. 275 and capitalised at twenty years purchase the value of the property will be over Rs. 10,000.2. Costs to be costs in the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Bai Reva Vs. Valimahomed Miyamahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR720
Pratt, J.1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of the Chief Justice in Second Appeal No. 102 of 1920. The suit was Original Suit No. 43 of 1915, and was filed by the plaintiffs who are trustees of a wakf, and they sue to recover possession of three lots, which had been alienated by former trustees, in breach of trust and in excess of their authority as trustees, to the defendant or defendant's predecessor-in-title. Lots Nos. 1 and 2 were sold by these former trustees on the 9th May 1903. Lot No. 3 had been mortgaged by them on the 9th September 1901. The District Judge in First Appeal dismissed the suit as regards lots Nos. 1 and 2 as time-barred under Article 134 of the Indian Limitation Act. But as to lot No. 3 the learned District Judge held that time was saved by time occupied in Suit No. 3 of 1910 which had been filed by the plaintiffs to secure a declaration that the property in suit was wakf property. He accordingly set aside the mortgage and decreed possession to...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwan Ganpati Mankeshwar Vs. Madhav Shankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR713
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to redeem and recover possession of the suit property after accounts had been taken under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. The property was originally mortgaged in 1836 by Shankar Janardhan Joshi for Rs. 100 repayable in ten years, to Ramchandra Motiram. Ramchandra sub-mortgaged the property to Rajaram Renukadas in 1841. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were in possession as his heirs. Ramchandra died without leaving heirs. The plaintiff, defendant 3 and one Vishwanath were the heirs of Shankar Janardhan, but Vishwanath renounced his rights in favour of plaintiff's father.3. Primes facie a suit for redemption became time-barred in 1906 but the plaintiff relied upon a rent-note dated the 11th February of 1878 taken by Shankar Narhar the father of defendant No. 1 in which the property was described as 'the property mortgaged to you.' Shankar Narhar presented the document for registration, and signed it. Shankar Narhar thereby acknowledged his lia...
Tag this Judgment!The Talukdari Settlement Officer Vs. Akuji Abhram Muse
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR762
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The suit was filed by the plaintiff as Talukdari Settlement Officer and manager of the estate of Naharsangji Mehramansingji, the Thakor Saheb of Dehevan, to get possession of certain survey numbers alleged to belong to the Talukdari estate. The suit property had been mortgaged in 1859 by the then Talukdar to the predecessors-in-title of defendants Nos. 1 to 7. It seems that they partitioned amongst themselves the suit property, and dealt with the suit property as if they were owners, executing various mortgage deeds between 1895 and 1906 which resulted in 16 acres and 241/2 gunthas becoming mortgaged to defendants Nos. 8, 9 and 10, while 1 acre and 121/2 gunthas of the suit property remaining in possession of the second defendant, The Judge found that defendants Nos. 8 to 10 had been in possession for more than twelve years after the lands had been mortgaged to them, although there seems to be an error with regard to the mortgage of 1906 which was less than twelv...
Tag this Judgment!Mathuradas Maganlal Vs. Nathubhai Vithaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom387; (1923)25BOMLR345
Pratt, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to evict the defendant who is a monthly tenant of the plaintiff's house at Sandhurst Road and, on July 18, 1921, gave notice to quit terminating the tenancy on September 1, 1921. The defendant pleads the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions) Act No. II of 1918 and the plaintiff's reply is that the defendant is not entitled to protection under the Rent Act as he has not paid the rent. The defendant admits that his rent is in arrears from July 1, 1919, but he states that he tendered arrears of rent to the plaintiff in August 1921 and that the plaintiff refused to accept the rent.2. On these pleadings the following issues were framed:(1) Whether the defendant did not in August 1921 offer to pay all arrears of rent?(2) Whether plaintiff declined to recover arrears as he said he had terminated the tenancy by his letter of July 1921?(3) Whether in any event the plaintiff under Section 9 of the Rent Act is entitled to an order for possession?3. Now the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Karimabibi Daudbhai Vs. Abderehman Sayad Banu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom26; (1922)24BOMLR496; 67Ind.Cas.667
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff in Suit No. 264 of 1919 in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Surat obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract to sell imnioveable property. The following order was passed :It is ordered that defendant No. 1 do execute to the plaintiff a gale-deed in respect of the property, the subject-matter in suit for Rs. 7200. In default on his part, the plaintiff do apply for execution of the same. The plaintiff do deposit in the Court Rs. 1449 being the balance of the purchase money due at the foot of the agreement, the subject-matter of this suit. On his doing so, the plaintiff do take possession of the house, the subject-matter of this suit after the execution of the necessary sale-deed. But he is not to take possession before that. The defendant No. 2 to take Rs. 4741-8-0 out of the said Rs. 6449, and he do give over the balance to defendant No. 1. The documents lying in Court of defendant No. 2 (three mortgage deeds) be given to th...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Someshvar Bhatt Vs. Vithaldas Karsandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR502
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 1,000 principal, and Rs. 69-5-0 interest thereon, by sale of the mortgaged house mentioned in the plaint situated at Godhra, or in the alternative for a registered mortgage deed thereof, alleging that he had advanced that sum to the defendant to enable him to carry on trade in Bombay, and in consideration thereof the defendant deposited the title deed of his house at Godhra and created an equitable mortgage thereon for Rs. 1,000. The defendant on the same day passed in Bombay a chitti in respect thereof. The defendant admitted the payment of Rs. 1,000 on the 19th November 1917, and alleged that that amount was to be accounted for in the partnership account at the end of the year, and he further contended that the equitable mortgage and the agreement relied upon by the plaintiff did not come within the jurisdiction of the Court, as the agreement took place in Bombay, the amount was paid in Bombay and the defendant was doing busine...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »