Mumbai Court February 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.
Ganpatibhatta Umamaheshwarbhatta Vs. Devappa Shankarnarayan Havik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom30(1); (1922)24BOMLR442; 76Ind.Cas.895
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit got a decree so far back as 1908 for a certain sum of money which was directed to be payable by instalments. If two instalments were in arrears the decree could be executed for the whole amount. But the decree also directed that 'the immoveable property of the defendant may be got attached and kept.' We do not know what meaning could be attached to those words. Clearly it was ultra vires of the Court if it was intended that the defendant's property should be attached before default had been made in the payment of the instalments. It seems that the plaintiff immediately after the decree was passed took out a Darkhast on 14th August 1908 under which the Court ordered the lands to be attached, but struck off the Darkhast. On the 21st June 1910, the defendant granted a mulgeni lease to the present opponents Nos. 2 and 3. Prior to that the decree-holder had bought from the judgment-debtor a considerable portion of the property which he purpo...
Radhabai Rom Bhaskar Sakharam Vs. Anant Pandurang Pandit and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.762
1. We do not underhand the procedure followed in this suit. It appears that there was some uncertainty whether the 4th defendant was served with the summons or not. The Judge made an order that the case should proceed against her ex parte when the 4th defendant actually appeared in Court and asked for this order to be cancelled. Notice was issued to the plaintiff and the applicant was then examined and she explained how it came to pass that she was not aware of the suit having been filed against her. But the Judge did not believe what was said and dismissed her application, directing that the case should go against her ex parte. We do not know under what provisions of the Code the that made this order pending the hearing of the suit. Until a suit is actually called on, a party is entitled to appear and defend. It may be that he is guilty of delay and if that is the case he may be mulcted in costs. But if he does not appear before the suit is heard, then he has no right to be heard. Rul...
Nasarvanji Cawasji Arjani Vs. Shahajadi Begam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR378; 66Ind.Cas.768
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The present plaintiffs were owners of a bungalow at Panchgani which had been let to the defendant on a lease, which the plaintiffs say expired on the 30th June 1920. Meanwhile the defendant had sub-let the premises, or part of them, and as he could not get possession from his sub-tenants a suit had to be filed in which there was a decree in the defendant's favour. The plaintiffs, as owners of the property, filed a suit against the defendant claiming that they were entitled to possession, and that the decree which the defendant had obtained against his sub-tenants was not binding upon them, and for an injunction against the defendant not to take possession. After the suit was filed, an application was made by the plaintiffs for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from executing his decree against the sub-tenants. The trial Court granted the injunction, and an appeal against that order was dismissed by the District Judge.2. In revision it is urged for ...
Chunilal Jamnadas Vs. Mulchand Harjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom23; (1922)24BOMLR440; 67Ind.Cas.417
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This was a partition suit in which a consent decree for partition was obtained on 8th November 1911 from the First Class Subordinate Judge, Broach. The plaintiff, on the 12th March 1915, took out a Darkhast for partition of the suit property and moveables. Commissioners were appointed, who submitted a report with regard to ornaments. But with regard to a certain house Mr. Hargovandas was appointed Commissioner to effect a division of it. He made a report, but before the report could be given effect to the house was burnt down. The plaintiff then wanted to drop the execution proceedings, but the defendant objected. The Court allowed the plaintiff to drop the execution proceedings. The result would be that those defendants who wished to continue the execution proceedings could not do so without having to issue a fresh Darkhast. We see no reason why the defendants should not have been allowed to continue the Darkhast in order that the suit property might be partitio...
Nusservanji Cawasji Arjani Vs. Shahjadi Begam Widow and Heir of Nawab ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)ILR46Bom939
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The present plaintiffs were owners of a bungalow at Panchgani which had been let to the defendant on a lease, which the plaintiffs say expired on the 30th June 1920. Meanwhile the defendant had sub-let the premises, or part of them, and as he could not get possession from his sub-tenants a suit had to be filed in which there was a decree in his favour. The plaintiffs, as owners of the property, filed a suit against the defendant claiming that they were entitled to possession, and that the decree which the defendant had. obtained against his sub-tenants was not binding upon them, and for an injunction against the defendant not to take possession. After the suit was filed, an application was made by the plaintiffs for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from executing his decree against the sub-tenants. The trial Court granted the injunction, and an appeal against that order was dismissed by the District Judge.2. In revision it is urged for the de...
Raghunath Waman Matapurkar Vs. Kondiba Babaji Mokashi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR499
Pratt, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs to recover possession of property of which they claim title, from the defendants, alleging prior dispossession. Both the lower Courts have found that the plaintiffs' title to the property in suit is proved but his suit has been dismissed on the ground that he has not shown, as he should show under Article 142 of the Indian Limitation Act, that he was in possession within twelve years of the suit.2. Now the various proofs which the plaintiffs gave of possession are all issues of fact disposed of by the judgments of the lower Courts with the exception of one that survives in this appeal. That is the plaintiffs' claim to have obtained possession under execution proceedings which followed on a partition suit filed by their brother in 1907. In that suit the two plaintiffs were the first and second defendants and a decree for partition was made on the 11th October 1907. The plaintiffs claim that they got possession of the property in execution pro...
The Rani of Tuni Vs. Korra Latchundhora and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom35
1. The Court delivered the following JUDGMENT: 2. This is a petition asking us to direct the Agent to the Governor, Vizagapatam, to review his proceedings dismissing, as inadmissible, an appeal from a decision of the Assistant Agent. 3. A preliminary objection has been taken to our hearing the petition, that it does not lie, because the Agent's disposal is not a decree, to which Rule 20, Vizagapatam Agency Rules, applies. The question whether the Agent's disposal is a decree is indistinguishable from the question, whether the decision under appeal before him was likewise a decree. The Assistant Agent was dealing with what undoubtedly was described before him as a petition and was headed as presented under Order XXI, Rule 58, Civil Procedure Code. The circumstances were that the present first respondent was claiming the property attached by the present petitioner in execution of her decree against the second and other respondents. The Assistant Agent in dealing with the case appears to ...
Sundar Bai Vs. Dwarkadas Parpia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.768
1. We think in this, case the evidence which the defendant wished to lead to show what was the real, agreement between the parties ought not to have been disallowed. The plaintiff was suing for specific performance of a written contract and to such a suit Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act applies. The defendant has set up a variation, namely, that the consideration was Rs. 5,500 plus the right of residence in certain rooms; and he alleges she signed the agreement on the understanding that that was the consideration which was mentioned in the contract. The Judge has found, presumably from examination of the parties after issues had been raised, that this agreement actually was made. But evidence must be led by the defendant to prove what she alleges. Illustration (b) to Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act appears to be applicable to the case without having recourse to the provision of Section 92 of the Evidence Act, because where specific performance is asked for, the law provides...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›