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.
Ganamma and anr. Vs. Ketireddi and Five ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom736
Oldfield, J.1. This is an appeal by the petitioners judgment-debtors, against an order dismissing their petition under Order XXI, Rule 90, Civil Procedure Code. The majority of the grounds on which the publication and conduct of the sale were impugned were rightly held unsustainable by the lower Court, because they either had been or might have been taken in the proceedings for framing proclamation, of which the petitioners had notice, and so far as they were taken, were either not established or were not material. We therefore can confine ourselves to two points, (1) the lower Court's failure to enquire into the allegation that the sale was not proclaimed in the village, (2) its conclusion, adopted from a previous order, that no publication at the Collector's office was required, because the property was not ryotwari land.2. That previous order is, in fact, material on both points, because as regards publication in the villages also the conclusion in it was adopted, no further enquiry...
Gavarawa Kom Gaudappa and ors. Vs. Mallanawada Chanagouda Patel and an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom382; 76Ind.Cas.559
1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they were the owners of the lands in suit and for a perpetual conjunction restraining defendants from obstructing their enjoyment. The suit property a admittedly was Vatan property which had been n the possession of Balappa as the last male holder. Baappa belonged to the third branch of the Vatan family, the pedigree of which is Exhibit 159, Balappa left two daughters and a brother's widow. It cannot be contended that under Section 2 of the Vatan Act (V of 1886) the r claims to succeed are not postponed in the event of there being in existence any male members of the same family. The plaintiffs were such members, therefore, prima facie, they would beentitled, at any rate, to share the property left by Balappa. The plaintiff belonged to the last branch of the vatan family and they proved that they had acquired the right of the second branch by agreement through arbitral on which came to an end after the suit was filed.2. The only quest on th...
MohiddIn Valad Kaka Patankar Vs. Ibrahim Alias Kaka Valad MainuddIn Pa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom297; 74Ind.Cas.161
1. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs to recover possession of a certain thikan which was khdi Khasgi land in the khotki belonging to the defendants family. The evidence showed that Jainu owned 16 pies share in the Khoti. He had four sons. The first defendant through whom the plaintiffs claim had a 5 1/3 pies share which was represented by certain lands separately owned for many years by Bapu and his father Balu, while the other members of Jainu's branch also held the other khasgi lands belonging to Jainu's share in separate possession. The plaintiffs purchased from the first defendant what rights of possession he had and do not claim possession as absolute owners. True, in the Trial Court it was held that the branch of the first defendant had acquired title by adverse possession to the suit thikan, and there are passages in the judgment of the District Judge which seem to point to his having come to the same conclusion. There are also other passages inconsistent with the finding, as...
The Secretary of State Vs. Bhatt Laxmishanker Govindram and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Bom27
1. The plaintiffs are the owners of house No. 1772 situated in the street behind the Post Office in the town of Borsad. In front of their house there is an ota which had been there for a considerable time on which the plaintiff's used to stack firewood, and keep cots, quilts and benches. In 1916 a survey was made of the town and the Inquiry Officer on the 14th August, 1916, decided that the land on which the plaintiffs' ota stood was street land. The plaintiffs appealed to the Assistant Collector. The appeals were rejected and consequently the suit had to be filed asking for a declaration that the land in suit was of their possession and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, the Municipality of Borsad and the Secretary of State for India in Council, from dispossessing the plaintiff of the said land.2. The plaintiffs' suit was decreed by the District Judge on the ground that they had proved that they were the owners of the land in dispute, although they had not proved t...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Bhatt Laxmishankar Gov ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.591
1. The plaintiffs are the owners of house No. 1772 situated in the street behind the Post Office in the town of Borsad. In front of their house there is an Ota which had been there for a considerable time on which the plaintiffs used to stack fire-wood, and keep cots, quilts and benches. In 1916 a survey was made of the town and the Inquiry Officer on the 14th August 1916 decided that the land on which the plaintiffs' Ota stood was street-land. The plaintiffs appealed to the Assistant Collector. The appeals were rejected and consequently the suit had to be filed asking for a declaration that the land in suit was of their possession and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, the Municipality of Borsad and the Secretary of State for India in Council, from dispossessing the plaintiffs of the said land.2. The plaintiffs', suit was decreed by the District Judge on the ground that they had proved that they were the owners of the land in dispute, although they had not proved t...
Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR908
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Bombay on Section question referred to it under Section 51 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1918. The facts out of which the appeal has arisen are shortly as follows:-For the official year 1919-1920 the appellant Company was assessed by the Collector of Income Tax, on a sum of Rs. 61, 84, 848, alleged to be income earned in the previous year, 1918-1919. The Company claimed to deduct from this assessment a sum of 28 lacs of rupees, paid by it to certain underwriters on an issue of 7,00,000 preference shares of the Company of Rs. 100 each, as expenditure incurred by the Company for the purpose of making profits in its business. By Section 9, Sub-section 1, of this Act it was provided that the tax (i.e., the income tax ) shall be payable by an assessee under the head of 'Income derived from business, 'in respect of the profits of any business carried on by the taxpayer, and by Sub-section 2(ix), it is further provided 'tha...
Marakarutti and Three ors. Vs. Veeran Kutti and Five ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom679
Socwabe, C.J.1. This case is referred to us by the District Judge of South Malabar. It is an appeal from the District Munsif of Parappanangadi. Difficultly has arisen owing to the fact of the District Munsif's court having been destroyed, in the Mappilla rebellion and the records in this case at the same time destroyed. We are informed that there are many cases similarly affected, and the learned District Judge asks our direction as to what is the proper course to adopt.2. The respondent only has been represented before us, but his vakil, Mr. K. P. Ramakrishna Ayyar, has assisted the court very much by placing before us fully everything that he could find whether it was for him or against him in the matter. I think that one can safely start with the proposition that there is inherent power in every Court to reconstruct its own records, and I think it follows that there is inherent power in the Appellate Court to reconstruct the records of the Court from which an Appeal lies to it. This...
Maddu Venkayya Vs. Kamireddi Padamma and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom721
Ayling, J.1. The petitioner in this case was directed by the Sub divisional Magistrate of Narasapatam under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 3 a month for his illegitimate child. He subsequently brought a suit in the District Munsif's Court of Yellamanchili and succeeded in securing a final decision on appeal to the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam to the effect that the child was not his. On this he applied to the Sub divisional Magistrate drawing his attention to the decision of the Subordinate Judge and making the following prayer:Your petitioner, therefore, prays your honourable Court to abstain, from giving further effect to the order, dated 21st May 1918, the order awarding maintenance, in view of the decree and judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge declaring that the second counter-petitioner was not born to the petitioner and that the petitioner is not bound to maintain her.2. This petition has been returned with the follow...
Usuf Alli Mujawar Alli Vs. AmIn Chandesaheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom366; (1923)25BOMLR810; 73Ind.Cas.233
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff obtained a decree in Suit No. 871 of 1906, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur, on December 10, 1907, by which he was awarded possession with past and future mesne profits of the property in suit. In March 1908 he filed a Darkhast for executing the decree for recovering possession and the past mesne profits, Meanwhile the defendant preferred an appeal, but the appeal was dismissed, The defendant preferred a second appeal and in the second appeal further execution of the decree was stayed under the orders of the High Court, after three sureties passed security-bonds for the due fulfilment of the decree that might be eventually passed against the defendant. The High Court confirmed the decree of the first Court on September 14, 1915, and the execution proceedings that had been stayed were continued. The plaintiff recovered possession and the past mesne profits in July 1916, and the proceedings terminated, Since then the ...
Sayad Yusuf Alli Wallad Mujawar Alli Khatib Vs. Sayad AmIn Alias Papa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1923
Reported in: (1923)ILR47Bom778
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff obtained a decree in Suit No. 871 of 1906, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur, on the 10th December 1907 by which he was awarded possession with past and future mesne profits of the property in suit. In March 1908 he filed a Darkhast for executing the decree for recovering possession and the past mesne profits. Meanwhile the defendant preferred an appeal, but the appeal was dismissed. The defendant preferred a second appeal and in the second appeal further execution of the decree was stayed under the orders of the High Court, after three sureties passed security-bonds for the doe fulfilment of the decree that might be eventually passed against the defendant. The High Court confirmed the decree of the first Court on the 14th September 1915, and the execution proceedings that had been stayed were continued. The plaintiff recovered possession and the past mesne profits in July 1916, and the proceedings terminated. Since ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »