Mumbai Court January 1923 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.
Alice M. Campbell Vs. Williams Chard and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR837
Fawcett, J.1. His Lordship first dealt with the question of the amount of deposit and was of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to a return of the deposit. The question of interest on the amount was then dealt with thus:] I have heard counsel on the question of interest. In the plaint this is claimed from the dates of actual payments of the two sums of Rs. 1000 and Rs. 500 respectively. Mr. Binning for the plaintiff Bays that his client ought to get this interest, as it is obvious that she has inequitably been kept out of her money by the wrongful acts of the defendants, and cites the case of In re the Metropolitan Goal Consumers' Association (Limited); Ex-parte Wainwright (1856) 59 L.J. Ch. 281 where in regard to a deposit for shares under a contract which the applicant was entitled to have rescinded, it was held he was entitled to interest upon his deposit by way of special damage. I should be very glad if I could see my way to allow the plaintiff interest at any rate from the e...
Shiddappa BIn Mahalingappa and anr. Vs. Pandurang Vasudev Chate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom385; (1923)ILR47Bom696; 72Ind.Cas.626
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 (1907) 32 Bom. 32 so that the plaintiff reversioner 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 reversioner can seek to ge...
Jayavant Rao Narayan Deshmukh Vs. Narsing Sakharam Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom414; 80Ind.Cas.180
1. A suit was brought against one Narayanrao in the Court of the Joint Subordinate Judge at Nasik, being Civil Suit No. 225 of 1917. Narayanrao died pending the proceedings, and his son was brought on the record as his legal representative on the 16th June 1918. The suit was dismissed on the 20th June 1918. But in appeal the decree of the trial Court was reversed and a decree was passed against the son on the 16th June 1919. The proper decree of the Court would have been against the son as the legal representative of his father to the extent of any assets which might come into his hands from the estate of his father. No one, however, seems to have taken any notice of the error which had been made and even in 1920, when the Darkhast was tiled Narayanrao's son paid Rs. 10. A fresh Darkhast was taken out in 1921 asking for the personal arrest of the present petitioner who then applied for a review of the decree of the Appellate Court for the purpose of amending the decree in conformity wi...
Bapujirao Raojirao Ghadge Vs. Raghunathrao Jotyajirao Ghatge and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom299; 74Ind.Cas.285
1. The plaintiff filed this suit to redeem the plaint lands from the mortgage mentioned therein. He has got a decree. But in the course of the suit he was met by defendant No. 22 who claimed to have an interest in the mortgaged land. That question was fought out in 1892 when the mortgagee filed a suit for possession against defendant No. 22 s father. Defendant No. 22's father was then disputing the present plaintiff's father's exclusive title and asserted his own over the land. The Court decided that defendant No. 22's father was not the least interested either in the land or in the mango trees, and that the present plaintiff's father was full owner of the properties mortgaged by him to defendants Nos. 1 and as father. The Court also held that defendant No. 22's father was not joint in interest with the present plaintiff's father. It seems very strange to me that, 30 years later, when the plaintiff seeks to redeem, he should be met by the same contention on behalf of the 22nd defendant...
Daudkhan Musekhan Vs. Chandulal Kanhayalal Bhujan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom370; 76Ind.Cas.521
1. The defendant admitted the wall was joint, but in re-build:ng his own house iie built beyond the middle line of the wall. The plaintiff wished for a mandatory injunction that defendant should remove the encroachment which after all is not a serious one. As a matter of fact, the part of the wall on the plaintih's side would be imprrved by gettins treater support from the defendants brick-tuld-ing. At the same time, defendant cannot be allowed to consider the encroachment as his own, on payment of compensation which was directed by the District Judge unless tre plaintiff is willing to accept compensation. Considering tiat the defendant was in the wrong we do not think that the plaintiff could be forced in effect t) sellnisland. Wed) not order the defendant to pull down his wall on account of an encroacl ment rf a few incnes. But we declare, tnat that portion of the defendant s br'ck-build'nt wl 'ch goes beyond tlenhddle 1 ne is ontle plaintiff's side of the pa ty wall. Tl e conditions...
Bhogilal Kirpashankar Vs. Darasha Kooverji Contractor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom303; (1923)25BOMLR308
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think the initial error was made by the trial Court when the present applicant applied to be put on the record in the place of Sorabji who was dead. At that time there was an appeal against an interlocutory order pending in the High Court. The learned trial Judge thought that on account of that appeal its functions were entirely suspended. Even if in the case of an interlocutory appeal, the High Court sends for the record for the purpose of dealing with that particular matter, for all other applications the suit-is pending in the trial Court. Therefore the trial Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application, since on the death of a party it is necessary to place his representatives on the record. It seems to me, therefore, that once we find that the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction and that error is at the root of all later proceedings, it is really not necessary to consider why the applicant has been still unsuccessful in getting his...
Rama Nana Babar Vs. Dhondi Murari Tarade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom432; (1923)25BOMLR361; 76Ind.Cas.607
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit as the adopted son of one Murari Tarade to recover possession of the suit properties, which had been gifted by his adoptive mother to her daughter Rakhma who died prior to the suit. Murari died leaving a widow Dhondai and three daughters. The date of his death does not appear on the record but it was prior to November 23, 1910, when Dhondai executed a gift deed (Exhibit 52) in favour of Rakhma, her youngest daughter. The document recites that the ether two daughters were married and had ample means, while Rakhma and her husband had been residing with Dhondai, serving her and looking after her comforts and the arrangement of her maintenance, and as she hoped that both of them would continue to do the same to the last she gave to Rakhma in gift the property described below. Then in the operative part it was stated that the donee should go on looking after the arrangements of the donor's feeding, etc., and should render service to ...
Hanmant Anant Hasabnis Vs. Shidu Sambhu Gatada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom300; (1923)25BOMLR358
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. A decree was passed in August 1886 in a suit between the respective predecessors of the parties in which a consent decree was taken in the following words:The plaintiff do pay to the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 Rs. 55 (in words fifty-five rupees) in respect of the debt on mortgage in the month of Chaitra of any year and the plaintiff do obtain possession of the lands in suit considering the same to have been redeemed from the mortgage. It should be understood that the plaintiff is not entitled to take possession of the lands in dispute in any other month except the month of Chaitra.2. The plaintiff is now seeking to execute that decree and was met by the contention that execution was barred by limitation. The trial Court, relying upon the decision in Maruti v. Krishna I.L.R. (1899) 23 Bom. 592 held that the application was time-barred, and disallowed the plaintiff's application to treat the Darkhast as a suit under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, as the relati...
Balkrishna Daji Gupte Vs. the Collector Bombay Suburban
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom290; (1923)25BOMLR398; 73Ind.Cas.354
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Certain lands situated in the District of Thana 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 May 5, 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, on July 8, 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 June 30, the cheque was handed over to Mr. P.N. Gupte. He, therefore, mad...
Rajanikanta Pal Vs. Jagamohan Pal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR683
Buckmaster, J.1. The facts in this case have been carefully investigated both by the Subordinate Judge and by the High Court, with the result that many of the points originally in dispute are now determined, and the two that remain depend upon the true inference to be drawn from ascertained circumstances and not from the consideration of what those circumstances may be. Upon these two questions there is a difference of opinion between the Subordinate Judge who decided in favour of the appellants and the High Court, by whom his judgment in this respect was reversed, The nature of the points involved will be best understood after a statement of the relevant facts.2. Lal Mohan Pal, who died on February 23, 1891, originally carried on business with one Paju Lal in the sale of yarns and cloths. This business ended in 1882, and therefrom Lal Mohan Lal started a similar business, the head office being at Dacca, with branch places of business at Calcutta and elsewhere. He was, in the business,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »