Mumbai Court August 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.
Karsandas Kalidas Ghia Vs. Chhotalal Motichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom119; (1923)25BOMLR1037
Fawcett, J.1. The facts in this case are sufficiently detailed in the judgment of the Court below and that of my learned brother. I proceed to consider the contentions urged before us in this appeal.2. I first take up the contention of the respondent's counsel, Mr. Lalji, that in any case the contract could not be enforced for want of mutuality. This is based on the ground that two of the defendant's brothers were minors at the time of the contract and on the ruling of the Privy Council in Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhrud-din Mahomed Chowdhur : 14 Bom. L.R. 5 In my opinion this plea must be rejected. First of all the objection of want of mutuality has never before been raised by the plaintiff and no issue was framed upon that point. In fact it amounts to an inconsistent plea which would require an amendment of plaint (Order VI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code). No such amendment has been asked for. Secondly, the plaintiff has by his conduct precluded him-self from raising this point, especially i...
Karsondas Kalidas Ghia Vs. Chhotalal Moti Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1923
Reported in: (1924)ILR48Bom259
Fawcett, J.1. The facts in this case are sufficiently detailed in the Judgment of the Court below and that of my learned brother. I proceed to consider the contentions urged before us in this appeal.2. I first take up the contention of the respondent's counsel, Mr. Lalji, that in any case the contract could not be enforced for want of mutuality; This is based on the ground that two of the defendant's brothers were minors at the time of the contract and on the filling of the Privy Council in Mir Sarwarjan v. Fakhruddin Mahomed Chowdhuri . In my opinion this plea must be rejected. First of all the objection or want of mutuality has never before been raised by the plaintiff and no issue was framed upon that point. In fact it amounts to an inconsistent plea which would require an amendment of the plaint (Order VI, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code). No such amendment has been asked for. Secondly, the plaintiff has by his conduct precluded himself from raising this point, especially in view of h...
Madhavji Virji Vs. Lakshmidas Mulji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom99; (1923)25BOMLR1178
Pratt, J.1. The first defendant is a tenant of the plaintiff from month to month of two go-downs on the ground floor of a house in Kazi Sayed Street.2. The plaintiff by notice on May 3, 1923, terminated the tenancy as from June 14, 1923.3. The first defendant pleads the Kent Act,4. The plaintiff says that there is satisfactory cause because defendant No. 1, on February 16, 1923, sub-let the go-downs to the second and third defendants. In support of this contention Mr. Munshi relies on Section 9(3) added to the Act by the Amending Act (Bom. Act III of 1923) and contends that as the lease has been determined by notice, the cane falls under both clauses of that sub-section; under the first, because the sub-letting is after August 21, 1922, and the term of the lease has expired by virtue of notice to quit; under the second, because the sub-letting is from month to month, and therefore extends beyond the period of the lease which has been determined by notice.5. I feel clear, however, that ...
Yeshvadabai Vs. Janardhan Raghunath Warik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom14; (1923)25BOMLR1172
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant and she sues him to recover maintenance and also possession of certain stridhan ornaments or the value thereof. In the plaint one of the prayers is that the payment of such sum as the Court may fix for her maintenance may be secured by a charge on the defendant's interest in certain immoveable property in Bombay. The property admittedly is an ancestral house which now has come to the defendant and his brothers. But, on the other hand, the main facts which have given rise to this suit did not take place within the local limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court. The defendant, during the time material to the questions that arise in this suit, had his residence at Igatpuri, where be was employed in railway service, and he has deposed that he did not come to Bombay to live there permanently until after he left the railway service on June 15, 1922. He admits that he is now living in the ancestral house already referr...
Chanbasappa Puttappa Vs. Chanbasava Mallappa Yaligar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom176; (1923)25BOMLR1078
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is a suit by the daughters of Mallappa to set aside an alienation made by the widow of Mallappa in 1905, It appears that Mallappa had mortgaged two lands, one of which was the land in suit, for Rs. 300. Though the terms of the mortgage have not been translated, it appears from the judgment that interest was to be paid in a regular manner, and if there was a default in the payment of interest, the mortgagor was liable to pay a much higher rate of interest. The widow, Hanmava, sold the property in suit for Rs. 300, as now found, to the present defendants' father, and thereby paid off the mortgage effected by her husband. As a result of this transaction she got the other land free from the mortgage for her own benefit, and parted with this land for good in favour of the defendants' father. Hanmava died in 1918, and the present suit was filed by the plaintiffs In June 1919 to recover possession of the property on the ground that the alienation could not...
Patdaya Muppaya Hiremath Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom273; (1923)25BOMLR1160
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these. The plaintiff is the Swami of the Hiremath at Haveri. He filed this suit on February 25, 1918, against the Secretary of State for India and two other defendants. These two defendants represent the line of one Chanviraya, who was the father of Baslingaya shown in the genealogy in paragraph 3 of the plaint. The plaintiff's predecessor in-title as the Swami of the Math was one Tirmalswami. This Tirmalswami, before he became the Swami of the Math, in his family was the natural brother of the said Chanviraya The suit relates to three Survey Numbers 35, 136 and 137 which, roughly speaking, represent two out of the four lands which were originally assigned under the Sanad of 1868 to Chanviraya for the purpose of remunerating him in connection with the per formance of his duties as a Jangam, The plaintiff's case is that really he and his predecessors, the Swamis of the Math, have been the Janga...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›