Mumbai Court April 1922 Judgments
Bai Dhondurai Daughter of Late Vishnupant Narsing Mavlankar and ors. V ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-22-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR47Bom65
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad. The facts of the case are fully set out in the judgment. The only question that has been argued in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has proved his title to the suit house. The plaintiff claimed under the will of his brother Janardan, who died on the 6th January 1913. Janardan had been adopted in 1892 by his mother's father Vishnupant. In October 1901 Vishnupant made a will and under that will he gave a life interest in the suit house to his wife Rakamabai and the remainder over to his adopted son Janardan. Vishnupant died in 1901 and in 1908 certain disputes that had arisen^ between Janardan and Rakamabai were settled by the execution of a deed of release and agreement, whereby Janardan's interest in the suit house after the death of Rakamabai was recognised.2. The only question, therefore, is whether the gift of the suit house by the will of Vishnupant was a valid gif...
Tag this Judgment!T. Ramasamy Aiyar Vs. T. Subramania Aiyar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom47
Oldfield, J.1. On the second issue remanded, relating, to plaintiff's share of the net profits received by second defendant and to be accounted for by him from plaintiff's share of the lands, or rather from the lands assigned to the latter, we have been unable to ascertain and the learned vakils concerned cannot say how the total found payable to plaintiff' has been reached. We, therefore, can only with the assistance of the materials now available and accepted by the lower Court indicate the lines, on which the account must be taken. The second defendant was in possession as manager of the family, until on the date of the plaint the joint family became divided and a tenancy-in-common replaced it, second defendant continuing in possession as one of the co-tenants. It is, therefore, possible to say at once that he has, from the date of the plaint (22nd August 1895), been accountable for plaintiff's share of the produce of all the lands with the exception for the present of Survey Nos. 2...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. AmiruddIn Salebhoy Tyabjee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom44; (1922)24BOMLR534; 67Ind.Cas.818
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The accused was charged before the Acting Chief Presidency Magistrate that he on or about the 14th day of October 1921 at Bombay abetted the commission by H.B. Clayton, Esquire, Municipal Commissioner of Bombay, a public servant, of an offence of taking gratification as the said public servant other than legal remuneration as a motive for doing a future official act, viz., giving contracts, punishable with imprisonment under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, which said offence was not committed in consequence of the said abetment and thereby committed an offence punishable under as, 116 and 161 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The accused was acquitted and Government have appealed.3. The facts are shortly as follows:-A cousin of the accused, one Ebrahim Mahomedally, had submitted plans to the Municipality, for a building on the Queen's Road, to which objections were raised. On the 21st September, accused called on Mr. Clayton and handed him a memorandum in respect...
Tag this Judgment!Rangaswami Shetti Vs. Sheshappa Manjappa Shimpi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR798
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff's obtained a decree in the Court of the Principal District Munsiff of Salem of the Madras Presidency in 1910. After ineffective attempts at execution the decree-holder applied that the decree should be transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sirsi in the Bombay Presidency for execution. The decree was transferred in July 1914. No steps were taken in the Sirsi Court to execute the decree and the Sirsi Court returned the decree unexecuted to the Salem Court in November 1918. In 1919, the Salem Court again transferred the decree to the Sirsi Court and the present Darkhast was filed on 9th June 1919. The judgment-debtor opposed on the ground that execution was barred. The question was whether an application which had been made on the 4th August 1916 to the Salem Court praying that the decree might be sent to the District Munsiff of Sagaram in the Mysore State for execution was a step-in-aid in execution made to the proper Court. The Distric...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Dhondubai Vs. Laxmanrao Trimbakrao Javadekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR794
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad. The facts of the case are fully set out in the judgment. The only question that has been argued in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has proved his title to the suit house. The plaintiff claimed under the will of his brother Janardan, who died on the 6th January 1913. Janardan had been adopted in 1892 by his mother's father Vishnupant. In October 1901, Vishnupant made a will and under that will he gave a life interest in the suit house to his wife Rakhmabai and the remainder over to his adopted son Janardan. Vishnupant died in 1901 and in 1908 certain disputes that had arisen between Janardan and Rakhmabai were settled by the execution of a deed of release and agreement, whereby Janardan's interest in the suit house after the death of Rakhmabai was recognised.2. The only question, therefore, is whether the gift of the suit house by the will of Vishnupant was a valid gift; an...
Tag this Judgment!Ganu Gopal Sonar Vs. Dattatraya Laxman Potdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR845; 75Ind.Cas.128
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an application by the certificated guardian of the minor for the sanction of the Court to the marriage of the minor. The opposition is raised by the step-brother of the minor, and the learned Judge seems to have given effect to that opposition by refusing sanction without dealing with the guardian's proposal on the merits. I do not think that that is the right view to take, as once the guardian is appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act, any application for the marriage of the minor by the guardian must be considered from the point of view of benefit to the minor; and any relation that might be entitled to be heard on the application will be heard; but such opposition must be considered at its true value and , cannot be considered as an absolute bar to the Court giving sanction to the marriage.2. The case must, therefore, go back to the District Court, and the District Court must consider whether, in the absence of any proposal of the step-brother, th...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Dhondubai and anr. Vs. Laxmanrao Trimbakrao Javadekar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1922
Reported in: 68Ind.Cas.504
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad. The facts of the case are folly set out in the judgment. The only question that has been argued in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has proved his title to the suit house. The plaintiff claimed under the Will of his brother Janardan, who died on the 6th January 1913. Janardan had been adopted in 1892 by his mother's father, Vish(sic) October 1(sic) Vishnupant made a Will and under that Will he gave a life interest in the suit house to his wife, Rakhmabai, and the remainder over to his adopted son, Janardan. Vishnupant died in 1901 and in 1908 certain disputes that had ari en between Janardan and Rakhmabai were settled by the execution of a deed of release and agreement, whereby Janardan's interest is the suit house after the death of Rakhmabai was recognised.2. The only question, therefore, is whether the gift of the suit house by the Will of Vishnupant was a valid gift, and that depends on th...
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of Bombay Vs. Fazulbhoy Ebrahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom155; (1922)24BOMLR513; 67Ind.Cas.761
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. One Khakibhai Hemani, a Khoja Mahomedan of Bombay, died on or about the 4th October 1900 leaving a will dated the 26th September 1900. He appointed as executors and trustees thereof Currimbhoy Ebrahim. Labai his wife, and Joosab Peerbhoy his son-in-law, Probate was granted to Labai and Joosab on the 4th December 1901. By Clause 4 the testator directed that Rs. 50,000 should be expended in such manner as his trustees might consider proper for such purposes as might perpetuate his name.2. By Clause 5 he bequeathed various legacies.3. To Fazulbhai, the son of his daughter Fatmabai, he bequeathed Rs. 50,000 to be invested in Government Promissory Notes, Port Trust Bonds or other Government Security Debentures. The income was to be accumulated for Fazalbhai's benefit, the principal and income to be made over to him on his attaining the age of twenty-one. If Fazalbhai died before attaining the age of twenty-one, the moneys we to be handed over to his issue, but if ther...
Tag this Judgment!Sidhraj Bhojraj Vs. Alli Haji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom33; (1922)24BOMLR509; 67Ind.Cas.757
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Third Judge of the Court of Small Causes.2. The following questions have been referred :-(1) Where after a debt has become due and payable and time has begun to run against the creditor, the debtor is adjudicated insolvent and his petition is subsequently dismissed and the adjudication order cancelled if the creditor institutes a suit thereafter against the debtor to recover the debt, is the time during which insolvency proceedings were pending to be deducted in computing the period of limitation ?(2) Is Section 17 of the Presidency Towns insolvency Act a bar absolute to the creditor's right to institute a suit so as to enable creditor to claim a deduction of the time during which the insolvency was pending, in computing the period of limitation in any suit brought by the creditor after the insolvency proceedings are quashed ?3. Judgment in the case was delivered by the Third Judge Contingent on the opinion of the High Court under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Maruti Babaji Totre Vs. Martand Narayan Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR749
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The appellants obtained a money decree against one Narayan Ballal in Civil Suit No. 415 of 1911 in the Second Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Khed for Rs. 685-10-0 and proportionate costs. Narayan Ballal was described as an agriculturist, and consequently as long as he was alive his immoveable property could not be attached or sold in execution of that decree, On his death the plaintiffs sought to attach the property which came to his sons as the surviving members of the joint family. Under Section 53 of the Civil Procedure Code the sons of Narayan Ballal must be considered to be his legal representatives, and under Section 50 the decree-holder is entitled to execute his decree against the legal representatives of the deceased. But it has been urged that if the sons are not agriculturists, the property is no longer protected by Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. In the trial Court the Judge found that the sons of Narayan Ballal were not ag...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »