Mumbai Court March 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.
Dagdu Rajaram Marwadi Vs. Laxman Pandushet Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom412(1); (1923)25BOMLR462; 73Ind.Cas.455
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think that the rule must be made absolute. The decree-holder's pleader put in his Vakalatnama in the proceeding for execution. It cannot be contended that because a claim petition was put in against the execution, it was necessary for the decree-holder to file another Vakalatnama....
Mary Lennon Vs. Percy Fisher
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom207; (1923)25BOMLR873; 87Ind.Cas.75
Fawcett, J.1. His Lordship first discussed and set out the facts as summarised above, and then proceeded to discuss the law applicable to the case : Now coming to the main question of negligence. First of all, I may refer to the general statement of the law by Tindal C.J. in Sarch v. Blackburn (1830) 4 C.& P. 297 300:If a man puts a dog in a garden, walled all around, and a wrong-doer goes into that garden, and is bitten, he cannot complain in a Court of Justice of that which was brought upon him by his own act .Undoubtedly, a man has a right to keep a fierce dog or the protection of his property, but he has no right to put the dog in such a situation, in the way of access to his house, that a person innocently coming for a lawful purpose may be injured by it.2. And the law is similarly stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. I, Article 818, p. 375. The case just cited also deals with the point of a notice being put up where a dog was kept, and it was held that it was not enough sin...
Ramasami Aiyar and ors. Vs. A. S. Venkatarama Ayyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom815
Phillips, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is the son of one Sambasiva Ayyar, the adopted son of one Sivarama Ayyar, and he sues to recover possession of certain properties, sold by his grandfather Sivarama Ayyar on the 29th of June 1901 to the first defendant who is the father of defendants 2 to 4 on the ground that the sale was not effected for any necessity and is not binding on him. The plaintiff's father and grandfather are now both dead and, therefore the plaintiff claims to recover the whole of the suit properties.2. The Subordinate Judge has found that there was no necessity for the sale and that it is, therefore, not binding on the plaintiff's share and he has given a decree to the plaintiff for a division of the property into two parts and for recovery of possession by the plaintiff of one half with mesne profits from the date of sale. The defendants now appeal and state that the decree is wrong and that the plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed on the ground that the fi...
Govinddas Rajaramdas Devi Vs. Ganpatdas Narrottamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom431; (1923)25BOMLR518; 113Ind.Cas.173; 73Ind.Cas.1030
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the plaintiff's Darkhast as time-barred. The decree was a partition decree passed on June 80, 1906. Some of the suit properties were partitioned by the Commissioner, but it seems that with regard to the house, the subject-matter of the present Darkhast, the parties thought that they might arrive at a settlement, with the result that it remained unpartitioned. The last Darkhast No. 193 of 1915 taken out by any of the parties was dismissed on September 12, 1917. That was a Darkhast by defendant No. 1, and it had nothing to do with the partition of the suit properties. The defendants' appeals to the High Court against the orders passed in that Darkhast and on plaintiff's Darkhast No. 428 of 1918 were decided on March 1, 1920. The present Darkhast was presented on October 4, 1920, and unless time can be computed from March 1, 1920, the present Darkhast is clearly time-barred.2. In Nand Kishore ...
K.F. Nariman Vs. Municipal Corporation of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom305; (1923)25BOMLR689; 83Ind.Cas.856
Mulla, J.1. His Lordship, after setting out the rival contentions of the parties, proceeded : The decision of the several questions raised by the third issue depends on the construction of Section 36, Clause (p), of the City of Bombay Municipal Act.That clause runs as follows:A councillor shall not vote or take part in the discussion of Any matter before a meeting in which he has, directly or indirectly, by himself or by his partner, any share or interest such as is described in Clauses (g) to (I), both inclusive, of Section 16, or in which he is professionally interested on behalf of a client, principal or other person.2. It is not alleged that any of the said councillors had any interest 'by his partner'. Nor is it alleged that any one of them was 'professionally interested' as stated in the section. The portion of Section 36, Clause (p), read with Section 16, Clauses (j) and (A), material to the decision of this case, is as follows:A councillor shall not vote or take part in the dis...
Bhausaheb Shidgauda Patil Vs. Ramgauda Annagauda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom471; (1923)25BOMLR813; 76Ind.Cas.937
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover as owners possession of the plaint house and open site and land from the defendants.2. The property originally belonged to one Akkagauda who died about 1846 leaving a daughter Kashibai, and two widows, Lingava, who died before 1868, and Tayava, who died in 1912. Tayava, therefore, succeeded on the death of Lingava to a widow's interest in Akkagauda's property. Kashibai was married to one Shivgauda and had by him a son Shidgauda who was six years old, when Akkagauda died.3. In 1868, Tayava alienated most of her husband's property by virtue of three deeds :- By one she gifted certain property to her brother Basappa; by the second she sold half of five Survey Numbers to Annagauda, a bhauband of her husband; and by the third she sold the other half of those properties to Shivgauda.4. Kashibai the daughter died in 1907 a few days after the death of Shivgauda. Pirgauda, another son of Kashibai, had been given in adoption into another...
Dharmaraja Vs. Pethu Raja and Three ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom811
Ayling, J.1. This dispute which, has given rise to the present litigation is in connexion with a channel which is claimed by the appellants to be a poramboke channel Feeding the Karisalkulam tank which irrigates their Lands, bat which the respondents, who were plaintiffs in the first Court, claim to be a portion of their patta lands and to have no connexion at all with Karisalkulam tank. The suits were brought to establish the rights of the plaintiff's in the channel and to prevent interference by Government, who are impleaded under the designation of the Secretary of State as the first defendant as well as by the other defendants, who are pattadars holding lands irrigated by the Karisalkulam tank. In the first Court, the plaintiffs were successful and were granted the reliefs prayed for by them. Government did not appeal, holding, as is now explained by the learned Government Pleader, that their interests were not sufficiently involved in the matter to make it worth their while to con...
Bapuji Krishna Karguppi Vs. Janardhan Govind Karguppi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom130; 80Ind.Cas.648
1. The application by the third defendant in suit to set aside the sale in execution of the decree in suit No. 3 of 1902 was bad for various reasons. The sale took place in pursuance of the order passed by Mr. Koppiker on the 10th August 1918. Defendants No. 2 and 3 at that time were minors and wore represented by their guardian. There was no appeal against that order. The second Defendant after he became major applied to the Court to set aside the sale and that application was refused. The third Defendant now makes a similar application. It seems to me that the auction-purcheser was a necessary party to such a proceeding. That is a fatal objection for an application of this kind. The appeal will be dismissed with costs....
Vadilal Sarabhai Vs. Manekji Pestonji Bharucha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom372; (1923)25BOMLR414
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Kajiji J. who passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against all the three defendants.2. The principal facts are not in. dispute. Plaintiff 1 is a certified broker. Plaintiff 2 is said to be a sub-broker working under him. It is not clear what the term 'sub-broker' implies. There appears to have been some sort of arrangement between plaintiff 1 and plaintiff 2 that plaintiff 2 should induce business on behalf of plaintiff 1 and should obtain remuneration in the shape of a share in the brokerage for such business, but it is not disputed that in this case plaintiff No. 2 conducted the business in his own name. In my opinion the term 'sub-broker' should not be used as it has no legal significance and may only lead to confusion of ideas. The learned Judge says that it is a fact of which even judicial notice can be taken that where a sub-broker issues contracts in his own name and the head broker allows him to do so, th...
Harjivan Devraj Vs. Gajanan Kashinath Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom420; (1923)25BOMLR459; 73Ind.Cas.187
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On June 29, J911, the plaintiffs obtained a decree in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Thana on a simple mortgage. The decree directed as follows:The defendant do pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 693 and costs within six months from this date or do pay the same into Court. In default, the plaintiffs do get the mortgaged property or a sufficient portion thereof sold and do recover their amount.2. That was a decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 4, Civil Prcedure Code, which corresponded to Section 88 of the Transfer of Property Act as it stood prior to the passing of the Civil Procedure Code. Sections 85 to 90, 92 to 94, 96, 97, 99 and part of 100 of the Transfer of Property Act IV 1882 were repealed, and re-enacted in the Civil Procedure Code in Order XXXIV, with certain variations. Decrees passed in accordance with the provisions of Sections 86 and 88 of Act IV of 1882 had been regarded by some Courts as final decrees and by some Courts as preliminary de...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »