Mumbai Court March 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.
Raghunath Sadashiv Thakur Vs. Dadaji Shamrao Thakur and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.423
1. This is a suit of a most peculiar nature. The plaintiff was the mortgagee under a registered mortgage for Rs. 400, dated 19th May 1901, whereby certain lands at Mhapan were mortgaged. The plaintiff filed Suit No. 91 of 1915, and obtained a mortgage-decree, which was made absolute and transferred to the Collector for execution. When the Collector took up properties Nos. 3 and 6 for sale, it was found on inquiry that the area and assessment of property No. 3 was less, and that No. 6 did not belong to the defendants. The plaintiff thereupon made inquiry regarding the rest of the property mortgaged, and discovered that out of the property mortgaged only thikan No. 5 belonged to the defendants. Even that thikan has not been included altogether. The plaintiff accordingly found himself in a very unfortunate position.2. If the facts set out above are correct, the plaintiff had a claim to recover damages in an action for deceit against the mortgagor for mortgaging properties which did not be...
Bachubai Jhirad Vs. Ibrahim Isak Motivala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR744
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an application in revision which involves a very important question of practice. The facts are that the plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana to eject the defendant. The defendant had instructed a pleader Mr. Patil. When the suit came on for hearing on the 7th July 1921, Mr. Patil was absent, but he had asked another pleader Mr. Karkhanis to attend to the case for him. Mr. Karkhanis asked for an adjournment as he had no instructions, but this was refused and the hearing proceeded ex parte. Although Mr. Karkhanis did not take any part in cross-examining the plaintiff's witnesses when the Judge having heard the evidence was prepared to pass a decree against the defendant, it does appear that Mr. Karkhanis addressed the Court on the question how much time Was to be granted to the defendant for giving up the premises.2. Thereafter an application was made to restore the suit to the board. The application was made b...
Mahant Narasinhdas Guru Sitaram Das and anr. Vs. Khanderao Vinayak Jos ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.860
1. These are two suits filed by the plaintiff claiming to recover certain properties by virtue of his title as Mahant of the Panchmukhi Hanuman Santhan at Bhuleswar, Bombay, and as Guru Bandhu of one Onkardas who died in 1904-05. Both suits have been dismissed. There was one judgment in both suits, and one judgment in the appeals in the Court below. The questions at issue are mostly questions of fact. The properties in question are (1) the Laxminarayan temple with the property said to be dedicated for the endowment thereof, and (a) the Pandhrnath temple with its endowment, both situated at Chandansar in the Thana District.2. Admittedly, on the findings of the Court below these properties were in the ownership or management of Tulsidas who appears in the pedigree at page 1. By his Will of 1898, he left these properties to Onkardas. Owing to their nature he would naturally give to Onkardas limited authority, that is to say, Onkardas had no power to sell the properties but only the author...
Mohammad Abdul Ghani Khan Vs. Fakhr Jahan Begam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1268
John Edge, J.1. These are consolidated appeals by the plaintiffs from two decrees, dated December 19, 1917, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which reversed the decree, dated July 13, 1915, of the Subordinate Judge of Kheri, and dismissed the suit.2. The suit was brought on February 20, 1914, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge by Mohammad Abdul Ghani Khan and Mohammad Abdul Rahman Khan against Mohammad Hamid Ullah Khan, Musammat Fakhr Jahan Begam, Musammat Asghari Begam, Musammat Chand Bibi and Pandit Sheo Dayal, for the possession of Mauza Mundia Misir, a four annas five pies share in Mauza Gundhia, and two groves, a house and certain sir land in Jalalpur, and for mesne profits. It was a suit of ejectment on title. The plaintiffs alleged that the right to possession of all the properties in suit was in them as the heirs of Musammat Munni Bibi, who had died on the June 16, 1906, and that the defendants had no title. The defendants, who are the respondents, were not ...
Dinkarrao Ganpatrao Kothare Vs. Narayan V. Mandlik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR449
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Pratt J. in an Originating Summons.2. The facts are that, on the 18th September 1878, one Vishvanath Narayan Mandlik conveyed to one Ganpatrao Bhaskar Kothare a plot of vacant land measuring 2843 square yards at Altamont Road for the consideration of Rs. 5,664. This plot formed part of a larger piece of land belonging to the vendor. The sale-deed was in Marathi and contained certain covenants purporting to reserve for the vendor, his heirs, Vahivatdars and donees certain rights of pre-emption, which covenants have given rise to the present dispute.3. Vishvanath died in 1889 leaving the first defendant his adopted son as his sole heir and legal representative. Ganpatrao built a large bungalow on the land he had bought. The following pedigree will be useful as showing the descendants of Ganpatrao:- (died 3-5-1894) Sarasvatibai=Ganpatrao (died 29-12-1893) | ------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | ...
K.P. Frenchman Vs. the Assistant Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR782
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Poona in a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land in reference is a square piece of land measuring 4.77 acres with good frontages on Connaught Road and Wellesley Road. In the far corner of it there was a bungalow, which undoubtedly at the time the property was notified for acquisition on the 25th April 1919, was in a state of disrepair. The property is situated certainly near the centre of the business part of the Poona City, excluding of course the city proper. All round there are public offices, hotels, churches, shops and other such premises. I think the Judge is right in saying that it is not quite in the best situation, either for being used for residential purposes or for shops which are patronised by European customers. At the same time it cannot be doubted that the property is in the centre of what I may call the business quarter of the town.2. The claimant bought the p...
Sir Mahomed Yusuf Vs. Hargovandas Jivan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR753
Marten, J.1. This appeal raises a short but important point on a Vendor and Purchaser Summons, viz., whether the executors of a Mahomedan will can validly sell and convey their testator's immoveable property without first taking out probate, or else obtaining the consent of all the heirs.2. The testator was a Bombay, as opposed to a Kathiawar, Halai Memon. Consequently the succession to his estate is governed by Mahomedan law: Mahomed v. Khatubai (1918) 21 Bom. L.R. 85 and that law is Sunni Mahomedan law. He made a will on the 5th November 1920 some twenty-four hours before his death. That will is exhibited to the joint affidavit of the three attesting witnesses sworn on the 30th September 1921 which we have admitted in evidence in this Court.3. The will after appointing the appellants to be his executors and trustees and guardians of his two infant daughters directed his trustees to pay his debts and funeral and testamentary expenses and a certain sum for funeral and religious ceremon...
Rasul Malik Pinjar Vs. Amina Hanif
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR771
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question of law which has not previously come before this High Court. A partition decree was passed in a suit, and in execution of the decree the plaintiff complained that he had been dispossessed of certain land by the Collector's subordinate officers which was his own property and not subject to partition. He seems to have originally filed a suit to recover possession of the property, but it was decided by the District Court' that the plaint should be treated as an application under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, and it was treated so accordingly. The trial Judge held that Article 165 of the Indian Limitation Act applied and the application was held barred as not having been filed within thirty days from the date of dispossession. The question seemed so clear to the applicant's adviser that, as the learned Judge points out, he seems to have admitted that there was no way of getting rid of the application of Article 165...
Ratanbai Shivlal Lohar Vs. Shankar Deochand Lohar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom27; (1922)24BOMLR775
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This suit was fixed for hearing for the 12th March 1920. Various adjournments were granted, the last of which was for the 24th July 1920. On that day when the case was called on the plaintiff was absent and the suit was dismissed. The same day the pleader appeared and presented an application for the restoration of the suit to the file. On the 23rd August, this application was dismissed. The learned Judge said:The applicant's pleader urges that the dismissal of the suit should be held to be under Order XVII, Rule 2 and Order IX, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, but it is clear that the Court has not dismissed the suit under the above provisions. The suit has been decided under Order XVII, Rule 3, because the plaintiff to whom time was given failed to produce the evidence, and the provisions of Order IX do not therefore apply. The plaintiff's only remedy is to appeal against the decree.2. The plaintiff has obtained a rule from this Court on the 25th November 1921 cal...
Bai Tara Vs. Mohanlal Lallubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR779
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The petitioner filed this application under the Guardians and Wards Act to be appointed guardian of the person of his minor son, who was living with his mother opponent No. 4 and his maternal grandfather opponent No. 5. I may point out at once that the application ought to have been dismissed, because such an application by a Hindu father under the Guardians and Wards Act, presumably under Section 19, is not competent, and a considerable amount of confusion has arisen in the course of the argument from neglecting to recognise that fact. The application should have been made under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act because it is admitted that under Hindu law the father is the natural guardian of his minor son, and he can apply to the Court, if his ward loaves or is removed from his custody, for an order for the minor's return, and the Court will, if it is of opinion that it will be for the welfare of the ward to return to his guardian, make such an order.2....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »