Mumbai Court April 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.
Rajeppa Ranappa Kundagol Vs. Gangappa Jotappa Mandwe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR789
Shah, J.1. The question of law arising in this appeal is as to how the property of a Hindu would devolve when the nearest relations of the deceased are his mother's sister's son and mother's brother's son.2. The facts are not in dispute. Nagapa was the last male holder and the adopted son of Jivapa. On his death the property devolved on his adoptive mother Pirava. She alienated the property in suit to her brother's son who is defendant No. 1. She died, and thereafter defendant No. 2, who is found to be her sister's son, sold the property to the plaintiff. On Pirava's death the inheritance is to be traced to Nagapa. The plaintiff claims through the adoptive mother's sister's son: and defendant No. 1 claims as the mother's brother's son. The alienation by Pirava ceased to be operative on her death.3. The trial Court held that the mother's sister's son was the preferential heir, and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The lower appellate Court held that the mother's brother's son was the prefe...
Keshav Manja Bhat Vs. Govind Naga Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom32; (1922)24BOMLR843; 75Ind.Cas.188
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 542-9-0 being the balance on a mortgage bond passed by the defendants on the 22nd May 1915, together with future interest and costs by sale of the mortgaged property or against the defendants personally. The learned Subordinate Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing that the money should be paid with interest within six months from the date of the decree. In default of payment of the decretal amount the plaintiff was to be at liberty to recover the same by applying for sale of the mortgaged property or sufficient portion thereof subject to the provisions of Section 15B, Clause (2), of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and to recover the deficit, if any, from the defendants personally. That is a form of the decree which it is not desirable to pass in mortgage suits, because it cannot be known until the mortgaged property has been sold whether there will be a deficit and if there is a deficit what the amou...
Chet Ram Vs. Ram Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1231
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated March 11, 1919, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which varied a decree dated March 31, 1916.2. The suit was brought on July 24, 1915, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut. The plaintiff's were minors and sued through their guardian, Ram Singh.3. No pedigree need be given. It is sufficient to bear in mind that Amar Sing succeeded on the death of his father, Nawal Sing, to a half of Nawal's property. This half, thus ancestral family property, was, at the date of the mortgage and sale after mentioned, the joint family property of Amar, of his two sons, Bharat and Kehar, and of Ram, son of Bharat, and Mahabir and Gajraj, the two sons of Kehar. This ancestral joint undivided estate was thus owned by two sons and three grandsons. The two sons as well as the three grandsons, the plaintiffs, were all alive at the date of the mortgage and sale after mentioned, and they are still alive. Amar, the grand-father, died in 1909...
The Indian Hotels Company Ltd. Vs. Phiroz Sorabji Contractor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom228; (1923)25BOMLR84
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiffs, the Indian Hotels Co. Ltd., are the owners of the immoveable property known as the 'Wellington Mews.' This consists of a ground floor and one upper floor, and is used as a mews and motor garage. The ground floor provides stabling accommodation for about one hundred and ninety horses in stalls and loose boxes shown in blue in the Plan. It also provides accommodation for about one hundred and fifty carriages, which are kept on open spaces shown in pink in the Plan.2. The evidence of the plaintiffs' representative, Dr. Vakharia, which is not disputed, is that no definite space is allotted to any particular carriage, but that carriages are placed as they happen to come in, so that they are not invariably on the same spot but change their position from time to time.3. Then, on the ground floor, there are nine single cubicles or lock-up rooms, each of which is able to contain one motor car. These are shown in green in the Flan. Each cubicle has a door with a loc...
Tukaram Bhau Dhas and ors. Vs. Ganpat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.767
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This appeal discloses a very curious state of facts. Gangabai, the widow of one Bapu, sold, on the 28th of January 1908, to her brother, the defendant, the suit land which had previously been mortgaged to one Daulat Ram in 1899. Out of the consideration of Rs. 1000 paid by the defendant Rs. 250 had already been received by Gangabai; Rs. 250 were to be paid to the mortgagee and Rs. 500 were to be paid to her at the time the sale-deed was registered. Events happened which induced Gangabai to evade the defendant and eventually on the 31st March 1918 she passed another sale-deed to one Nana Krishna for Rs. 1,000 and that was consented to by Bhau and Govind, at that time representing the whole body of the next reversioners. Nana, the 2nd vendee, obtained possession of the land and so the defendant filed a suit in 1910 against Gangabai, Nana and the Lens of the mortgagee and paid Rs. 750 the balance of purchase-money into Court. The result on that suit was that the def...
T.P. Srinivasa Chariar Vs. C.N. Evalappa Mudaliar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1214
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated March 6, 1917, which varied a decree of the District Judge of Chingleput, dated December 11, 1914.2. The suit was instituted by the persent appellant and another under the Civil Procedure Code, Section 92. The prayer of the plaint was for an account of the respondent's management of a temple in the district of Chingleput since his assumption of office, and thai he 'be made accountable for all losses occasioned to this temple by his breaches of trust, for his removal from office, and for the settlement of a scheme for the management of the Devastanam and its properties.' Incidentally, the judgment for accounts made in the suit has raised a question of complexity and importance as to the ownership of lands of considerable extent and value. The issue upon that topic is the principal one raised in this appeal. It is whether those lands belonged to the temple or are the private prop...
Sayed Kasam Vs. Jorawar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR1
Viscount Cave, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant in the suit against the decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces, reversing a decree of the Additional District Judge, East Berar, Amraoti, and giving judgment for the plaintiffs.2. Nain Singh and the plaintiffs, who wore the issues of his brother Khannu Singh, formed at one time a joint Hindu family, resident in Berar and subject to the law of the Mitakshara as there interpreted. Before the date of the deed next mentioned, Nain Singh and the plaintiffs had become separate in mess and residence, but not in estate.3. By a registered sale-deed dated September 29, 1902, Nain Singh sold his half share of the ancestral property of the family (with some moveablo property) to Syed Kasam for 20,000 rupees, of which 15,000 rupees were admitted by the vendor to have been received in advance, and the remaining 5,000 rupees were paid to him in the presence of the registering officer. No partition was then effec...
P. Subramanya Somayajulu and anr. Vs. Y. Seethayya and Four ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom92
Schwabe, C.J.1. The question to be decided in these appeals is, whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits, the subject of the appeals, or whether their jurisdiction is ousted by the Madras Estate Land Act. The suits are between the inhabitants the village of Arepalli and their immediate landlords, the agraharamdars of that village. If the agraharamdars are landholders within the meaning of Section 3 (5) of the Madras Estates Land Act of 1908 the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction by reason of Section 189. 'Landholder' means a person owning an estate or part thereof and includes every person entitled to collect the rents of the whole or any portion of the estate. Whether this village is an 'estate' or not depends on Section 3 (2) which includes in the definition 'any village of which the land revenue alone has been granted in inam to a person not owning the kudivaram there of'2. It has been established that, where a grant in inam is a grant of both the landlord's ...
Emperor Vs. Kalyanchand Gopalchand Gujarati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR487
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an application in revision made by the petitioner who was convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Yeola under Section 19 of the Indian Arms Act which provides a penalty for the offence of going armed in contravention of the provisions of Section 13. Section 13 directs that no person shall go armed with any arms except under a license and to the extent and in the manner permitted thereby.2. The accused is not a licensee, but his cousin handed over the gun for which he held a license to the accused while proceeding in a marriage procession. The accused fired some shots during the procession, with the result that some persons were accidentally injured. It is contended that the license permitted the licensee to go armed in the marriage procession. Clause 4 of the license reads as follows:-The licensee or any retainer acting under this license shall not go armed with any arms coveted thereby otherwise than in good faith for the purpose of sport, protection ...
Kalyanchand Gopalchand Gujarati Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom35; 67Ind.Cas.722
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an application in revision made by the petitioner who was convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Yeola under action 19 of the Indian Arms Act which provides a penalty for the offence of going armed in contravention of the provisions of Section 13. Section 13 directs that no person shall go armed with any arms except under a license and to the extent and in the manner permitted thereby.2. The accused is not a licensee, but his cousin handed over the gun for which he held a license to the accused while proceeding in a marriage procession. The accused field some shots during the procession, with the remit that same persona were accidentally injured. It in contended that the license permitted the licenses to go armed in the marriage procession. Clause 4 of the license reads as follows:The licensee or any retainer acting under this license shall not go armed with any arms covered thereby otherwise than in good faith for the purpose of apart, protection or ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »