Mumbai Court December 1924 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.
Manilal Jibhai Vs. Ishvarbhai Samalbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom367; (1925)27BOMLR421; 87Ind.Cas.934
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. The plaintiff filed this action to have a declaration that the land described in the plaint was street land and to obtain a mandatory order directing defendant No. 1 to remove an otla made by him on the land. The Municipality of Nadiad city, in which the property was situated, was made a party defendant. Defendant No. 1 asserted that his otla existed since a long timti; that plaintiff had no interest in the land; that the land wan held to be of his ownership by the City Survey Officers and that no damage was caused to the plaintiff.2. The trial Court held that the suit land was a public street and that plaintiff was entitled to sue to have the encroachment made by defendant No. 1 thereon removed.3. The first defendant appealed. In his judgment, the Judge said:-Assuming that the otla land forms part of a public street land, the question is whether defendant No. 1's act amounts to a public nuisance. I think, it does, vide I. L, R, Mad. p. 433 and 24 Bom. L. R...
ibrahim Fazalbhoy Joomabhoy Vs. International Banking Corporation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom252; (1925)27BOMLR283; 87Ind.Cas.485
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs stated that they were the payees and holders in due course of seven bills of exchange drawn in London by Alfred Mumford and Co. Ltd. addressed to the defendant firm of Fazalbhoy Joomabhoy & Go personally and without qualification as on various dates and amounts all payable sixty days after sight. The defendant firm of Fazalhhoy Joomabhoy & Co. accepted all the bills as payable at the plaintiff bank and signed their acceptances 'for or on behalf of the Eastern Commercial Corporation '2. The plaintiffs claimed that such words did not affect the firm's personal liability. The bills were all dishonoured by non-payment cm their due dates.3. Fazalbhoy Joomabhoy, a partner in the defendant firm, died on July 15, 1922, and the plaint was amended by making defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3, his heirs and legal representatives, together with defendants Nos. 4 and 5, the remaining partners, the defendant on the record. The plaintiffs prayed that the defendant f...
Ratanji Dorabji Vs. Kisandas Tribhovandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom302; (1925)27BOMLR340; 94Ind.Cas.923
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think that the learned Judge in the Court below was right in holding that the defendants' consent to the proposed assignment of the lease had been unreasonably withheld, the ground being that there had been a dispute between the landlord and the tenant with regard to another letting. The learned Judge has found as a fact that there was a genuine dispute between the parties, that there was not a determination on the part of the tenant to decline to pay rent, but an objection to pay until the particulars of the tenancy had been definitely ascertained, which was not done till 1919. The appeal, therefore, must be dismissed with costs....
Manikbai Vishnudas Gujjar Vs. Gokuldas Ramdas Karadgi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom363; (1925)27BOMLR414; 87Ind.Cas.816
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the plaint property after a declaration that plaintiff No. 1 was an owner or in the alternative if plaintiff No. 1 was not an heir that plaintiff No. 2 should be declared the owner.2. It was alleged that the property originally belonged to two brothers Narsidas and Shankerdas, but it has been found by the Court below, and that finding has not been disputed in this Court, that the brothers were not in union, and so the following pedigree will be sufficient for the purposes of this appeal.Ekambribai Narsidas (died 1883) |----------------------------------| | | |Manubai (Plff. 2) = Ramdas Radhabai Ratnabai Poonabai| | |Manikbai | -----------(Plff. 1) | | || Deft. 4 Deft. 6|-------------------------| | |Deft. 2 Deft. 3 Deft. 53. The property was held jointly by Naraidas and his son Ramdas Narsidas died in 1883. Ramdas was adopted in 1908 by one Bhagwandas, a first cousin of Narsidas. At the time of his adoption Ramdas...
Mohanlal Motilal Shah Vs. Harilal Bhogilal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom346; (1925)27BOMLR419; 87Ind.Cas.929
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover Rs. 8,100 on three promissory-notes of Rs. 2,700 each, signed by the first and the second defendants, with interest thereon. The promissory notes were signed on October 12, 1921.2. The plaintiff had got a decree for Rs. 14,517 in the High Court in Suit No 2756 of 1919 against defendant No. 1, who was adjudged insolvent by an order of the High Court on October 4, 1921, under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, and consequently any dealings thereafter between the plaintiff and the insolvent with regard to his property, his assets or estate would be null and void as against the Official Assignee, and also as against the Court which had the conduct of the insolvency proceedings. According to the evidence it seems that the plaintiff had compromised his claim of Rs. 14,517 by accepting a present payment of Rs. 1,100, taking promissory notes for Us. 8,100 and relinquishing the rest of his claim.3. The whole proceeding was...
Motilal Hirabai Vs. Bai Mani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR455; 87Ind.Cas.269
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree made by the Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad on September 28, 1915, which was affirmed by the High Court of Bombay on June 26, 1917.2. The circumstances that gave rise to this litigation are simple. It appears that one Acharatlal had purchased 48 shares of Rs. 1,000 each and 48 sub-shares at Rs. 500 each issued by a company which carried on business in Ahmedabad under the name of The Ahmedabad Ginning and Manufacturing Company. The purchase was made in the name of a person named Girdharlal Dalpatram. This Girdharlal was the nephew of a woman called Bal Gulab, who is said to have been under the protection of Aohnratlal. In the year 1883 a controversy arose between Acharatlal and Girdharlal as to the real ownership of the 48 Rs. 1,000 shares and the 48 Rs. 500 sub-shares. Acharatlal alleged that Girdharlal was only his benamidar and that in fact he was the real beneficial owner of the said shares. The contest wa...
Vishnu Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Tukaram Ganu Bogar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom375; (1925)27BOMLR449; 87Ind.Cas.779
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain possession of the lands described in the plaint, or in the alternative for a declaration that he as inamdar was entitled to demand enhanced rent from the defendants, stating that the lands belonged to the Deshpande family as inam watan lands.2. The defendants admitted that the lands were watan inam lands; but they contended that the lands belonged to them as their ancestral properties; that they were in possession from ancient times; that the ancestors of the plaintiff had got the right to recover the Government assessment only from them and accordingly they used to pay Rs. 31-32 only in the Khata of Ramchandra Gopal for the judge that they were not annual tenants; that no proper notice was given to them by the plaintiff; that the father of the plaintiff had instituted Suit No. 34 of 1891 against their ancestors; that in that suit their ancestors had claimed the lance as of their ownership; and that since then they were in posses...
Baijnath Singh Vs. Hajee Vally Mahomed Hajee Abba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR787
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the Chief Court of Lower Burma, dated May 23, 1919, varying two decrees of that Court in its original jurisdiction, one dated February 28, 1917, in suit No. 62 of 1916, and the other, dated March 15, 1917, in suit No. 60 of 1916.2. Both suits were bought by Baijnath Singh for the redemption of shares alleged to have been mortgaged by him.3. Suit No. 60 of 1916, is against Hajee Vally Mahomed Hajee Abba. Suit No. 62 of 1916, was originally against Hajee Mahomed Jamal, but the plaint was amended by adding the defendant Abdul Kareem Abdul Shakoor Jamal. Later, dur- the pendency of the suit, Hajee Vally Mahomed Hajee Abba was substituted as defendant in their place, and he is now the sole defendant in both suits.4. The plaintiff's right to redeem is denied on the ground that the several transactions on which the plaintiff relies were not mortgages, but sales with a right of repurchase that has expired.5. The trial Ju...
Manilal Chunilal Choksi Vs. Manilal Damodardas Mody
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom159; (1925)27BOMLR99
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit on May 24, 1924. It was described in the plaint as a summary suit. The endorsement on the plaint stated that it was a summary suit and as such it appears, it was admitted. The cause of action arose more than six months before the plaint was filed and consequently the suit as a summary suit was barred under Article 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. When the defendants were served with the summons, defendant No. 2 took out a Chamber summons against the plaintiff, asking for an order that the suit should be removed from the list of summary suits, or in the alternative that he might be granted liberty to defend the suit and file his written statement. Strictly speaking the defendant could not be entitled to the first relief he asked for in this summons, because as long as a suit is a summary suit he cannot appear until be has got leave to defend, and it could only be when the defendant had got leave to defend that he would be enabled ...
Jag Prasad Rai Vs. Musammat Singari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR760
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, dated July 13, 1921, which reversed a decree of an Additional Subordinate Judge of Gorakpur, dated April 24, 1918.2. The family to which the parties to the suit belonged is a Hindu family which is governed by the law of the Mitakshara. The following pedigree shows how the parties to the suit are connected with each other, but in reading the pedigree as printed, it must be read from the right of the reader to his left. Sheo Narain was the eldest son of Balkrishn Bai and of his seven younger brothers, Durga Prasad was the youngest.3. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought by Jag Prasad and Ram Jas Rai against Musammat Singari, the widow of Gaya Prasad, who died childless, for possession, or a declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession of property of which Gaya Prasad died possessed on the allegation that they and Gaya Prasad were, when he died, members of a ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »