Mumbai Court February 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.
Gajanan Vinayak Vs. Assistant Collector, Salsette
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom54; (1923)25BOMLR480
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. His Lordship after dealing with the facts continued: Then there is one error which the Collector and the lower Court have made. It is very likely that the mistake was not pointed out to either of them, but the land has been valued on instances of sales of what we may call the tenant's rights, and in order to value the freehold, that is to say, the value of all interests in the land, something in addition would have to be awarded, because the purchaser of the tenant's rights, to acquire the freehold, would have to redeem the rights of the Khot. Instead of adding something on to the valuation of the tenant's rights, as the value of the Khot's interest, both the Collector and the Judge have deducted out of the tenant's interest the value of the Khot's interest. In this case it is a very small amount. The rent paid to the Khot is only fourteen annas, and we may say that for a payment of Rs. 25, the tenant could have redeemed all outstanding interests of the Khot...
Gajanan Vinayak Vs. Assistant Collector and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1923
Reported in: 85Ind.Cas.11
1. This is an appeal from an order made by the Joint Judge of Thana in a land acquisition reference. The land to be acquired was notified for acquisition on the 24th January 1919. At page 108 will be found a plan showing the property coloured pink which was acquired out of a much larger area which belonged to the claimant Gajanan Vinayak. The Collector awarded Rs. 2-8-0 a square yard for all interests in the land. The joint Judge increased that to Rs. 3, and divided the amount between Gajanan Vinayak, the occupant, and the khot of Kaneri, in the proportion of 2 to 1. The claimant Gajanan contends that the land was worth Rs. 4 a square yard in January 1919, but that contention is based on sales dating from May, June and July in 1919, several months after the land under reference was notified. It is a matter of common knowledge that as conditions began to improve after the Armistice had been signed, prices for land went up rapidly. But there is no evidence that they began to rise before ...
Devendra Marrappa Jingowda Vs. Shettappa Hooleppa Ventagatti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom264; (1923)25BOMLR251
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision made by the complainant against an order of acquittal. The three accused were charged before the Third Class Magistrate of Khandesh for having committed of offences under Sections 352 and 504, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate discharged the accused Nos. 2 and 3, and after carefully considering the evidence convicted accused No. 1 under Sections 352 and 504, Indian Penal Code, and ordered him to pay a fine of Rs. 30. In appeal the Sub-Divisional Magistrate reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused. We are told that no notice was sent by the appellate Court to the District Magistrate as should have been done under Section 422, Criminal Procedure Code. This no doubt was an irregularity, and had the District Magistrate moved in the matter, we should certainly have interfered, as was done by this Court in Emperor v. Shivlingappa, Basappa : AIR1923Bom74 ; bat it is different matter when we are asked by the complainant to...
Damodar Jagjivan Vs. Govindji Jivabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom392; (1923)25BOMLR378; 73Ind.Cas.240
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the land and tram-cars, which he alleged he purchased from the first defendant on January 7, 1908. He lost possession owing to Govindji Jivabhai acting in collusion with the second defendant Balkrishna Jagannath Patil. Govindji had been adjudicated an insolvent, and the Official Assignee could have been made a party. It appears that plaintiff intended to make him a party, but in the title of the suit 'Govindji Jivabhai insolvent and on behalf of him the Official Assignee' is absolutely wrong. The Official Assignee ought to have been sued personally, so that if the plaintiff wished to sue him, Govindji would have been the first defendant, the Official Assignee, as assignee of the estate and effects of the insolvent Govindji, the second defendant, and Balkrishna Jagunnath, the third defendant. The suit was decreed in the lower Court. In appeal, the Judge on the merits was in favour of that decision, but considered th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›