Mumbai Court April 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.
Kallyantai Father Appaswami Dharmar Vs. Shivappa BIn Nagappa Hargapur ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom516; 76Ind.Cas.405
1. The decision in the appeal before us depends on the constriction of the document, Exhibit, 65. The District Judge has found that the gift contained in the document was not made to Ramaswami, as to an adopted son, but it was, on the contrary, made to him, because he could not be adopted. The learned Judge was at first of the contrary opinion, but after wards he seems to have departed from the strict construction of the terms of the document in order to give effect to what was stated by Maralswami in his written statement in the suit filed against him in 1905. We doubt whether that is a satisfactory method to adopt in order to construe the document passed in 1897. At that time the situation was perfectly clear, as stated in the document. Maralswami had no issue by his wedded wife. He had an illegitimate son Ramaswami. It had been decided in a previous suit by the High Court that Ramaswami was Dasiputra, and, therefore, was not entitled to the Gadi. Therefore, Maralswami set about to g...
S.M. Ramzan and Co., Trading at Aden in the Name of Aden Oil Company, ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom520; 76Ind.Cas.578
1. The plaintiffs claimed Rs. 1,577-12-0 against the defendant as the price of certain goods, sold. It appears from the record that the defendant gave the plaintiffs a draft on one Devji Sarakchand for the amount on 20th September 1920, and, if the plaintiffs had presented the draft to the drawee at once, it would have been honoured. As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs endorsed the draft over to the firm of Rajeebhoy Lallji and Co., on the 1st October 1920. On the 16th October 1920 the drawee made up his account with the drawer leaving the amount with the drawee which would have been sufficient to pay the draft, so that, between the 1st October and the 16th October, if the draft had been presented it would have been paid. Thereafter, the drawee became an insolvent, with the result that the defendant lost the benefit, of the money which was with the drawee and which should have been paid to the plaintiffs if he bad done what he ought to have done when he got the draft. On these facts th...
Thorappa Devanappa Vs. Umedmalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR604
Mulla, J.1. His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case went on. The suit came on for hearing before me on March 28, 1923, and again on April 3, 1923, for a few hours on each day. On March 28 counsel for the plaintiffs read out the evidence recorded in the case, Counsel for the second defendant then addressed the Court. Counsel for the first defendant followed him. Though the second defendant filed a long written statement, he did not give any evidence in the case. Such being the case, it is difficult to say under what circumstances the hundi passed into his hands and whether he played any part in this nefarious affair. Nor was any evidence led on behalf of the first defendant. On April 3, at the close of the address of counsel for the first defendant, Mr. Lalji, who had already addressed the Court on behalf of the second defendant applied that the plaintiff may be re-called to give him an opportunity to cross-examine him as to whether the third defendant had given any authori...
Alfred Wilkinson Vs. Grace Emily Wilkinson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom321; (1923)25BOMLR945
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act IV of 1869 to the High Court of Bombay for the confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage in a suit filed in the Court of the District Judge of Poona by the petitioner Alfred Wilkinson against his wife Norah Wilkinson as the respondent and a Captain D' Arcy as co-respondent.2. The petitioner alleged that he was married to the respondent on August 8, 1914, at Poona. That he resided in Poona till 1317 and in Bombay until 1920 when he went to England with his wife and two children. That he returned on March 18, 1921, and resided at Poona. From May 1, he was employed in Bombay while his wife remained at Poona and they last resided together at Poona. In Poona the respondent became familiar with the co-respondent and on various occasions committed adultery with him. On August 22, the respondent came to Bombay to the petitioner and on the 23rd left him to go away with the co-respondent who lef...
Thorappa Devanappa Vs. Umedmalji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom205; 87Ind.Cas.226
Mulla, J.1. After stating the facts of the case His ' Lordship proceeded as follows:]The suit came on for hearing before me on March 28, 1923, and again on April 3, 1923, for a few hours on each day. On March 28, Counsel for the plaintiffs read out the evidence recorded in the case. Counsel for the 2nd defendant then addressed the Court. Counsel for the 1st defendant followed him. Though the 2nd defendant filed a long written statement, he did not give any evidence in the case. Such being the case, it is difficult to say under what circumstances the hundi passed into his hands and whether he played any part in this nefarious affair. Nor was any evidence led on behalf of the 1st defendant. On April 3, at the close of the address of Counsel for the 1st defendant, Mr. Lalji, who had already addressed the Court on behalf of the 2nd defendant applied that the plaintiff may be re-called to give him an opportunity to cross-examine him as to whether the 3rd defendant had given any authority to...
Vishnu Nagappa Venkatesh Bhat Vs. Narasinha Pandurag Prabhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1923Bom461; (1923)25BOMLR490; 73Ind.Cas.1011
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application made by the decree, holder for execution of his decree, the application having been made on June 15, 1921. The previous application for execution was presented on May 25, 1918, and it is conceded that the present application must be time-barred unless between these two dates something has been done which would set a new period of limitation running. The appellant relied upon an application made by both the parties to the Court to postpone the application in the Darkhast of May 25, 1918, with a view to a compromise being arrived at between the parties. It is difficult to see how such an application can be considered as a step-in-aid of execution. There was no application made to the Court to do something which would assist the decree-holder in furthering the execution of the decree. On the other hand the application was similar to the application in Abdul Kader Rowther v. Krishnan Malaval Nair I.L.R. (1913) Mad. 695 which was called an ...
Chunilal Gulabdas and ors. Vs. Chhotalal Pranjivan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom522; 76Ind.Cas.635
1. In this matter a decree was passed declaring that the plaintiffs were entitled to the user of the Wadi and the vessels in accordance with the usage or rules of the caste and that defendants were restrained from obstructing the plaintiffs in the user of the Wadi and vessels according to that usage and rules of the caste. The plaintiffs took out a darkhast on the ground, we presume, that they were not allowed the user of the Wadi and the vessels. Two issues were raised: (1) for what purpose were the Wadi and vessels demanded by plaintiffs and (2) was the demand according to the usage or rules of the caste. The Judge found that the Wadi and vessels were demanded for an Ochav assigned to an individual before factions, but to be performed by another, appointed by plaintiffs' faction. On Issue No. 2 he held that the demand was in defiance of caste usage. It seems to us that on such a caste question it is impossible for any Court to decide one way or the other, certainly when the lower Cou...
Chudasama Kholuba Sartansang and ors. Vs. Chudasama Takhatsang Narsing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1923
Reported in: 76Ind.Cas.155
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit for a declaration to the effect that Survey Nos. 177 and 40 of the Tagdi village, bounded as described in the plaint, belonged in common to all the 100 Dokda sharers of the village for use as common pasture and grainyard, and for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from using the land of the said numbers, either by themselves, or through others, for other purposes, and from interfering with the plaintiffs either by themselves or through others in the use of the same for the said purposes. The plaintiffs' case is that the village of Tagdi was first partitioned into two main shares of 50 Dokdas each in 1809, when lands of the Padar and grainyard were kept joint. They rely upon the certified copy of the document passed between the parties' ancestors in that year. The original was not forthcoming, but the copy which was produced showed that the original was produced in Court in 1823. It has been ascertained from the origin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›