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.
Dattatraya Mangeshaya Chikarmani Vs. Venkatesh Vasudeo Prabhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR741
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This was an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Kanara setting aside the decree of the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. The facts are as follows. One Narayanrao was the owner of the Mulgeni rights of the suit property. In 1890 he mortgaged his Mulgeni rights to Laxmibai. In 1899 a creditor got a money decree against Narayanrao, and in execution his Mulgeni rights were sold to the defendant's predecessors. Clearly what could have been sold then was the equity of redemption. Laxmibai in 1905 brought a suit on her mortgage. A decree was passed and in execution the Mulgeni rights were sold by the Court to the heirs of Laxmibai, who sold in 1917 to the present plaintiff. The predecessor of the defendant, the owner at the time of the equity of redemption, was not a party to the mortgagee's suit. But he was in possession, and when the plaintiff as a purchaser went to get possession, the persons actually cultivating the land refused to give possessio...
Gopala Chetty Vs. Vijayaraghavachariar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1197
Phillimore, J.1. About the year 1908 a partnership was formed between Narasimhachariar, the respondent, Vijayaraghavachariar, the appellant, Gopala now deceased and the appellant Ethirajulu, who for the purposes of this appeal also represents the first appellant. Narasimhachariar having died in 1911, a suit was filed on November 15, 1913, in the High Court at Madras by his adopted son against the respondent and the two appellants, praying for partnership accounts, and payment to him of his adopted father's share, The plaintiff in this suit was, in some manner not now important to consider, settled with, and retired from the suit and by an order of the High Court the respondent was transposed from his position as defendant and became plaintiff, continuing the suit against the other defendants, the present appellants.2. The suit came on for bearing before a Judge of the High Court on February 26, 1915, when it was found that the partnership had been dissolved before the death of Narasimh...
Mari Doddatamma Markundi Vs. Santaya Ramkrishna Pai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR768
Coyajee, J.1. The respondent being in possession of certain lands instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal, to seek an injunction to restrain the appellant from dispossessing him by enforcing the decree passed in Suit No. 293 of 1917. He further asked to be restored to possession if during the pendency of this suit he is so dispossessed. The facts which have necessitated these proceedings are as follows:-2. In or about March 1915 the respondent put the appellant in possession of the suit lands under a Chalgeni agreement. In 1917 the respondent obtained a decree in the Court of the Mamlatdar at Kumta in possessory Suit No. 3 of 1917 and took possession which he has retained ever since. The appellant then brought Suit No. 293 of 1917 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Kumta for restoration of possession, under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. He obtained a decree in his favour, but before he could execute it the respondent instituted the present suit to es...
Narayan Ramchandra Thite Vs. Pandurang Balkrishna Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR831; 76Ind.Cas.71
Pratt, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the defendants are permanent tenants of the lands in suit which are described as the Bhavani and the Huleshwar lands. The lower appeal Court has held that they are not. The appeal is not pressed as regards the Bhavani lands, for it has been definitely ascertained that the tenancy began in the year 1851. As to Huleshwar lands, it is contended that the defendants were entitled to the presumption enacted in the second clause of Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.2. The plaintiff's landlord acquired the lands by gift from A the Raja of Satara in 1830. The lands then were Pad or uncultivated and there was no tenant in occupation. The receipts show that the plaintiff's grandfather was in occupation as tenant in 1850; the tenancy must, therefore, have begun between 1830 and 1850. It is now settled by Chikko v. Shidnath (1921) 24 Bom. L.R. 226 that the phrase ' commencement of the tenancy' in Section 83 refers to the time and no...
Ramalinga Annavi Vs. Narayana Annavi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1209
Ameer Ali, J.1. These two consolidated appeals from a decree of the High Court of Madras arise out of a suit which was brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly on January 31, 1910, for a decree for partition in respect of certain moveable and immoveable proparties together with outstandings of a money-lending business on the allegation that they and the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 formed members of a joint undivided Mitakshara family. The following pedigree will explain the relative positions of the parties and their respective contentions. ---------------------------------------------- | | | Subramania Raman Annavi Krishna Annavi Annavi (died) (died). (died). | | | Ananthanarayana *Adopted son | Annavi (died). Ananthanarayana | | Annavi (died). | | Natural son of Ramalinga | | Annavi *Married Ramal | | Ammal (who died in | | 1891). | ------------------- ----------------------------------- | | | | | | Subramania Son Son Muthuswami Ramalinga Lakshmiva...
Bai Jadi Vs. Purshottam Narottam Dave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR729
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Shah affirming the decree of the lower appellate Court which dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The facts are set out in the judgment from which it appears that one Punja was the original mortgagee of the suit property. When he died his widow Bai Manek became entitled to the rights of Punja as mortgagee, and Bai Manek created a san-mortgage in favour of one Pitamber in respect of the suit property and other property, that is to say, she pledged her mortgage rights which had come to her from her husband. Pitamber filed a suit to recover his debt from the widow and others and obtained a decree for the amount claimed with the direction that 'on the defendants' failing to pay, the plaintiff do sell the right, title and interest of Bai Manek, the 1st defendant, in the plaint-hypothecated house and the mortgage right of Rs. 460 Babashahi created by Mathur Mangal the 6th defendant over his portion in favour o...
Shankarbhat Balambhat Kanitkar Vs. Sakharambhat Harbhat Kanitkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR734
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff applied to the First Class Subordinate Judge to file a suit in forma pauperis. Notice was issued to the Government Pleader who did not appear, and to the opponents who asked for time. The Judge saw no reason to grant further time, and decided in favour of the applicant ex parte, the Judge being satisfied that he was a pauper and unable to pay the requisite Court fee stamp on the plaint. That order was made on the 6th November 1920.2. On the 8th April 1921, an application was made, the exact nature of which is not quite clear from the record. But it was refused by the Judge on the ground that the plaintiff had been guilty of fraud from the beginning. The same day the Judge held the plaintiff to be dispaupered and the suit was dismissed. The Roznama is not very clear as printed at p. 1, because it will be seen that the defendant applied that the plaintiff be dispaupered since he held a life-policy. Accordingly he was dispaupered and ordered to pay Cou...
Khushalsingji Himatsingji Vs. Umansingji Dolatsingji Thakore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR738
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovering rent due for the year Samvat 1973 on the strength of a registered lease passed by the defendant to several co-sharers in the village, one of whom was plaintiff, and the issues were found in favour of the plaintiff, but the Judge found that he could not get a decree unless he obtained Letters of Administration to the estate of one Daulatsingji deceased, whose adopted son he claimed to be. The proper order then to nave made was to place the suit on the stayed list to give the plaintiff an opportunity of getting Letters. However the Subordinate Judge, no doubt, with the laudable desire of decreasing the number of suits on his file, dismissed the suit with costs, but gave liberty to the plaintiff to apply to have the dismissal set aside within a month from the date of the order, if any, passed in his favour by the District Court, Surat, for Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased Daulatsingji.2. The suit was d...
Gangaram Bhiku Mahadik Vs. Bapusaheb Daulatrao Mahadik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR826; 67Ind.Cas.965; 84Ind.Cas.508
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is a Sardar and Jahagirdar in the Gwalior State. His estate is in the management of the Court of Wards, and he has filed this suit through the Court of Wards against the defendants to recover possession of certain property in the Satara District alleged to belong to the plaintiff. It is admitted that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff's family. But the defendants claimed that they have been in possession of the suit property as the descendants of one Dhondi, who, it is asserted, was the dasiputra of Janrao. It is admitted that there in no decisive evidence in favour of that assertion; and no doubt there would be very great difficulty in proving the connection between Dhondi's mother and Jaarao, considering the time chat has elapsed. But it has been urged upon us that there are surrounding circumstances from which we must necessarily infer that Dhondi was a dasiputra. The descendants of Dhondi have used the same family surname as...
Simon Reuben Vs. Haji Shaikh Mahomed Shustary
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR465; 67Ind.Cas.433
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement with the first and second defendants to let the third floor of a building on the Ballard Estate. The agreement which he asked the Court to specifically perform is at page 1, Part III, and runs as follows:-We agree to rent to Mr. Haji Shaikh Mahomed Shustary the top floor of our building under construction at Plot No 3 Ballard Estate for a period of five years and five years option at a monthly rent of Rs. 1500 only from the date of the completion of the same subject to the conditions and entering into a regular lease. A deposit of three months' rent amounting to Rs. 4,500 only is paid on signing of this contract.2. The learned Judge has passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendants to specifically perform the agreement and execute in favour of the plaintiff a lease of the third floor of the building situated on the Ballard Estate for a term of five years from the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »