Mumbai Court January 1923 Judgments
Peerkha Lalkha Vs. Bapu Kashiba Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom410; (1923)25BOMLR375; 73Ind.Cas.231
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Nazukbi, the owner of the suit property, passed an agreement in plaintiff's favour on April 2, 1907, to sell the land to the plaintiff. On September 4, 1907, Nazukbi agreed to sell the land to one Chimaji. Chimaji obtained a sale-deed on October 18, 1907. The plaintiff obtained his sale-deed on November 29, 1907. All those documents were registered. The defendants purchased the land from Chimaji on July 28, 1914. On August 2, 1919, the plaintiff filed this suit to recover from the defendants the suit property alleging that the defendants dispossessed him on July 28, 1914. That is the date of the defendant's sale-deed from Chimaji. The plaintiff failed to prove that he had been in possession in 1914 and had been dispossessed.2. The question is whether Chimaji took his sale-deed in October 1907 with notice of the previous agreement by Nazukbi to sell the same property to the plaintiff. It has been urged that registration of the agreement of April 2, 1907, ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhau Abaji Deshpande Vs. Hari Ramchandra Patki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom301; (1923)25BOMLR411
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for possession of certain property on the basis of a sale-deed from the daughters of one Krishnaji, dated March 14, 1919. There was an agreement that Rs. 2,000 should be paid after the vendee had recovered possession, and that fact alone leads one to think that the parties to the sale-deed were aware that there was soma defect in the title. Krishnaji was the last male holder of the property. He died leaving a widow Radhabai who adopted the first defend, ant on May 20, 1913. The second defendant was a vendee from the first defendant. Obviously, if the adoption was good, the plaintiff would have no rights against the first defendant. But the plaintiff contended that the first detent ant had no title as the adopted son of Krishnaji, because he had been previously adopted by one Ramchandra Waman Patki. The factum of that adoption was proved. It was also proved, however, that the first defendant was the sister's son of Ramchandra. The parties b...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Miya Shaikh Abbas Potrik Vs. Manubibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom411; (1923)25BOMLR408; 73Ind.Cas.246
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession by redemption of the property described in Clause (e) of para 2 of the plaint. The properties originally belonged to Bhaudin who left a widow Hamidabibi, a son Daud, and two daughters who are plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3. After Bhaudin's death, a suit was filed by a creditor of his, and only Daud was made a party, but as he was a minor, Hamidabibi, his mother, was impleaded as his guardian and filed a written statement on his behalf. In execution of the decree which was passed in favour of that creditor, certain property belonging to the estate of Bhaudin was put up for sale. That property had already been mortgaged to one Abbas in 1878, so that the heirs of Bhaudin were only entitled to the equity of redemption, which was purchased by AH, father of Abbas. The present defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons of Abbas. A decree for redemption was passed in favour of plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 by the trial Court, and that has been...
Tag this Judgment!Husseinali Casam Mahomed Vs. Dinbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom135; (1923)25BOMLR252
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plain tiff filed this suit against the defendants as executors of the last will of one Jumabhai Sheriff claiming two separate sums of Rs. 10,000 with interest at six per cent, from the death of Jumabhai, under a document alleged to have been executed by Jumabhai on January 18, 1919, which ran as follows:Bai Dinbai-Owing to my health becoming weaker day by day I give you this paper in writing of my free will that you will kindly accept Rs. 10,000 for the fee for the nursing which you have done for me and my family for ten to twelve years and Rs. 10,000 as a paltry present from me in all Rs. 20,000 to be paid after my death out of my estate.2. She also alleged that the deceased made an oral will in her favour. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff only attended on the deceased as a nurse when he was suffering from typhoid fever for which she was fully paid. The relations between the plaintiff and the deceased were otherwise of an immoral character. The...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanchand Lalachand Patni Vs. Bhogilal Jayachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom400; (1923)25BOMLR371; 73Ind.Cas.310
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed a suit in 1905 against the four sons of one Jayachand deceased. They added as a defendant one Bhaichand who they alleged stood surety for the amount due by Jayachand. A decree was passed in March 1907 against defendants Nos. 1 to 4 as representatives of the deceased Jayachand The plaintiffs' suit against defendant No. 5 was dismissed. Against that order of dismissal the plaintiff's appealed but without success. The plaintiffs made various applications for execution against defendants Nos. 1 to 4, including Darkhast No. 745 of 1917 filed in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Dhulia, which was transferred to Jalgaon owing to the transfer of the territorial jurisdiction from Dhulia to Jalgaon. By that Darkhast the applicant sought to attach the particular house to which a claim was made by a third party which was successful. Thereafter the applicant asked the Court to amend that particular Darkhast by substituting other property f...
Tag this Judgment!Bapuji Narso Kulkarni Vs. Datta Antaji Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom425; (1923)25BOMLR404; 73Ind.Cas.279
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession as owner of the suit lands from the defendants. The lands originally belonged to one Bhimaji, who was the only brother of the first defendant Dattu. He was adopted into the other branch of the family, whose pedigree appears at p. 4 of the print, by Appaji. He died in 1905 leaving a son Baburao, who admittedly at that time was a lunatic. Bhimaji, before his death, executed a malkipatra in favour of the first defendant, and I gather from the record that Bhimaji, who must have been aware of his son's lunacy, executed the document in favour of the first defendant on the understanding that he should undertake to look after Baburao.2. In 1906, plaintiff filed a suit in the Athni Court against Dattu, claiming as the person entitled to succeed to the property of Bhimaji after the death of Baburao, who he alleged had recently become a lunatic, to obtain a declaration that the malkipatra alleged to have been executed by Bhimaji...
Tag this Judgment!P.V. Raghava Chariar Vs. Murugesa Mudali and Three ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom583
Walter Salis Schwabe, Kt., K.C., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Kumaraswami Sastri, J., refusing to confirm a sale made at Court auction. He has refused to confirm the sale on the ground that all the facts were not placed before him when the reserve price was fixed and when the plaintiff obtained leave to bid. There is a misapprehension on the part of the learned Judge, in that the application for leave to bid was to him, but the application to fix the reserve price was to the Registrar and not to him. I do not think it is enough to say, in order to refuse to confirm a sale, that all the facts were not put before the Court on the two occasions referred to. But, in my judgment, the Court has an inherent power to refuse to allow the sale to be carried out if it is satisfied that the Court has been misled either in giving leave to bid or in fixing the reserve price. This is only an instance of the inherent power possessed by all Courts to prevent, an abuse of the process of the...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Daji Gupte Vs. the Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR47Bom699
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Certain lands situated in the District of Than a were notified for acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act. Notice was served by the Collector on Mr. P.N. Gupte, in whose name the lands stood in the Government records.2. On the 5th of May 1920 Mr. P.N. Gupte put in a. claim for compensation under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act. Mr. B.D. Gupte, his uncle; who was present, stated that he and Mr. P.N. Gupte, his nephew, were interested in the same land.3. After the award was made Mr. B.D. Gupte wrote oh the 8th July 1922 to the Salsette Development Officer stating that-he was the owner of one half of the land, and had appeared before the Collector to make a demand for compensation. He complained that without any further intimation to him a cheque for the full value of the land had been ordered to issue to his nephew, Mr. P.N. Gupte, and in spite of his protest made when he appeared again on the 30th June, the cheque was handed over to Mr. P.N. Gupte. ...
Tag this Judgment!The Broach City Municipality Vs. Gulam Rasul Haji Banubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom289; (1923)25BOMLR305
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The only question in this application made un behalf of the Broach City Municipality is whether an order made or a decision given by the District Court under Section 160(3) of the Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. Act III of 1901) can be executed, or whether it is necessary to make an application to the Court to pass a decree in accordance with the order or decision. It would certainly be very remarkable, when a summary method has been provided for by the Legislature for determining disputes arising for money compensation or damages which are directed to be paid by the Act that it should be necessary in order for the successful party to obtain relief to file a suit when the District Court has come to a definite conclusion on the merits. The District Court in cases in which the compensation is claimed in respect of land should follow, as far as may be, the procedure provided by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for proceedings in matters referred for the dete...
Tag this Judgment!Siddappa Mahalingappa Vs. Pandurang Vasudeo Chate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR395
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether this case is exactly similar to the case of Vrijbhukandas v. Dayaram I.L.R. (1907) 32 Bom. 32 : 9 Bom. L.R. 1181 so that the plaintiff reversions could be held entitled to recover the property in the condition in which it was when the widow died. The trial Court directed that the plaintiff should recover possession of the land, on which the shop in suit stood, with liberty to defendants forthwith to commence to remove their building, the removal to be completed within one year from the date of the order.2. This decision was reversed by the appellate Judge who directed the plaintiff to recover possession of the shop as it stood. The widow, when she mortgaged the property without necessity, agreed that the mortgagee should practically rebuild the shop, which, at the time of the mortgage, was in a ruinous condition. It seems to us difficult to see how under the principles of Hindu law or any principles of equity, the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »