Mumbai Court February 1924 Judgments
Rukmini Vithu Vs. Rayaji Dattatraya Pai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom454; (1924)26BOMLR672; 83Ind.Cas.45
Pratt, J.1. The plaintiff sued to evict the defendant from the house in suit on the ground that the defendant was his tenant and that she had forfeited the tenancy by disclaimer of her landlord's title in her written statement in suit No. 227 of 1913.2. The defendant's main plea was that she was a permanent tenant and held under one Ghurye who was a permanent tenant of the plaintiff.3. The lower appellate Court found that the written statement of the defendant was a disclaimer of the landlord's title and that the plaintiff was justified in forfeiting the tenancy; that the question of tenancy was res judicata because in suit No. 227 of 1913 which the plaintiff had filed against the defendant before the Subordinate Judge exercising the powers of the Small Cause Court, a decree had been made against the defendant for payment of rent on the footing that she was a tenant of the plaintiff. The Judge also found on the evidence that the tenancy was not permanent.4. Now we do not concur with th...
Tag this Judgment!Vijayasing Dattajirao Thorat Vs. Shivajirao Narayanrao Thorat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom416; (1924)26BOMLR378
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order dismissing the application by one Tarabai on behalf of the minor Vijayasing to set aside the abatement of the suit which was filed by the minor's father. The father died on August 30, 1920. According to the law of limitation then prevailing the suit would abate on February 28, 1921, unless an application had previously been made to put his legal representatives on the record. But on January 1, 1921, Act XXVI of 1920 came into force under which the period of limitation for putting the legal representatives on the record was reduced from six months to three months. The application on behalf of the minor had then to be made before January 1, 1921. But it was not made until February 28, and as the suit had then abated, the proper application to make to the Court was to set aside the abatement. The Court, instead of amending the application so as to make it one under Order XXII, Rule 9, Civil Procedure Code, rejected the application as ...
Tag this Judgment!Vijaya Singh Dattajirao Thorat Vs. Shivajirao Narayanarao Thorat and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.761
1. This is an appeal from an order dismissing the application by one Tarabai on behalf of the minor Vijayasing to set aside the abatement of the suit which was filed by the minor's father. The father died on August 30, 1920. According to the law of limitation then prevailing the suit would abate on February 28, 1921, unless an application had previously been made to put his legal representatives on the record. But on January 1,1921, Act XXVI of 1920 came into force under which the period of limitation for putting the legal representatives on the record was reduced from six months to three months. The application on behalf of the minor had then to be made before January 1, 1921. But it was not made until February 28, and as the suit had then abated, the proper application to make to the Court was to set aside the abatement. The Court, instead of amending the application so as to make it one under Order XXII, Rule 9. Civil Procedure Code, rejected the application as being made under Orde...
Tag this Judgment!Somabhai Valabhbhai Vs. Aditbhai Parshottam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom347; (1924)26BOMLR289
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case prayed for an inquiry under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, into offences alleged to have been committed by the opponents under Sub-section 193, 209, 465, 471 and 114, Indian Penal Code. The Subordinate Judge, after holding an inquiry, directed that the opponents should take their trial before the Court of the First Class Magistrate of Nadiad for offences under Sub-sections 193, 465, 471 and 209, Indian Penal Code. The Subordinate Judge did not comply with the provisions of Section 476 of the amended Criminal Procedure Code by which the Court is directed, incase it thinks that proceedings should be taken, to make a complaint in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court and forward the same to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction.2. Against the order of the Subordinate Judge dated September 29, 1923, an appeal was filed to the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad and under Section 476 B, Criminal Procedure Code. T...
Tag this Judgment!Somabhai Vallavbhai Vs. Aditbhai Parshottam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1924
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.947
1. The petitioner in this case prayed for an inquiry under Section 476. Criminal Procedure Code, into offences alleged to have been committed by the opponents under Sections 193, 209, 465, 471 and 114, Indian Penal Code. The Subordinate Judge, after holding an inquiry, directed that the opponents should take their trial before (the Court, of the First Class Magistrate of Nadiad for offences under Sections 193, 465, 471 and 209, Indian Penal Code. The Subordinate Judge did not comply with the provisions of Section 476 of the amended Criminal Procedure Code, by which the Court is directed, in case it thinks that proceedings should, be taken, to make a complaint in writing signed by the presiding officer of the Court and forward the same to a Magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction.2. Against the order of the Subordinate Judge, dated 29th September, 1923, an appeal was filed to the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad under Section 476B, Criminal Procedure Code. The Judge allowed the app...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Devi Vs. Shambhu Nath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR557
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by Mussammat Durga Devi and her minor son Kali Sahai, two of the defendants to the suit, from a decree, dated March 10, 1916, of the Chief Court of the Punjab, which reversed a decree, dated July 31, 1914, of the District Judge of Amritsar, which had dismissed the suit. The respondents are Shambhu Nath, who is the plaintiff in the suit, and Arjan Singh and Nathu Mal, who are two of the defendants to the suit and have taken no part in this appeal or in the litigation.2. The pedigree of the family to which Shambhu Nath belonged is as follows.3. The suit was brought in the Court of the District Judge of Amritsar on October 21, 1913, for a decree for the possession of two houses, a well, a Kothri and a shop in Amritsar, of which the plaintiff alleged that he, as the adopted son of Ram Chand, was the owner His case is that he was adopted by Pandit Ram Chand in September, 1896, who was the owner of the property in question, and died on July 13, 1897. The cas...
Tag this Judgment!Subba Rama Hegde Vs. Venkatsubba Hegde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom434; (1924)26BOMLR427
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit was one Subraya Hariappa Hegde. He alleged in the plaint that when his relation Madappa was absent from the village the defendant told him that his interest would suffer if he acted according to the opinion of Madappa and that the defendant would manage his property in such a way as would safeguard his interest. Having given this improper advice, the defendant had forcibly taken him to Honavar about the beginning of the month of Ashadh (Shake year 1841) and had got a document written and took his signature by a thumb impression thereon; that he did not understand what was written in the document, and received nothing in return in connection with it from the respondent. The defendant, in whose favour the document was signed, is the cousin of the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff wished to get the document bad and objected to its being registered. Accordingly his prayer was that it should be declared that the document which the def...
Tag this Judgment!Motichand Girdharshet Vs. Chandrabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom421; (1924)26BOMLR488
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff No. 1 to recover arrears of maintenance and future maintenance for herself and her three sons, and her daughter, and also marriage expenses of plaintiffs Nos. 2, 3 and 4. The first plaintiff was the kept mistress of one Girdhar Madhowji and the other plaintiffs were her children by him. The parties come from Alibag where they are subject to the Vyavahara Mayukha, and it is contended before us that illegitimate children under the Mayukha would not be entitled to any maintenance. However we agree with the decision of the learned Judge that it does not appear from the Mayukha that there is any direct prohibition against illegitimate children in the case of the regenerate castes being entitled to maintenance, and considering the authorities which have been referred to, it would be going too far if we were to lay down that in the Districts, which are governed by the Mayukha, illegitimate sons are not entitled to maintenance.2. With...
Tag this Judgment!William K. Hewson Vs. Ethel M. Hewson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom397; (1924)26BOMLR467; 85Ind.Cas.774
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the Judicial Commissioner of Sind has passed a decree nisi for dissolution of marriage in favour of the petitioner, William Knox Hewson, on the ground that his wife had committed adultery with some unknown person. It now comes before us for confirmation. In the first place, we may point out that there is no allegation in the petition that the parties are domiciled in British India. Unless it is shown that they are domiciled in British India, the Indian Divorce Act gives no jurisdiction to hear the petition. That is an allegation which ought to be contained in every petition under the Indian Divorce Act. In any event we should have to send the case back if we thought the decree was right, so that the evidence of domicil should be on the record. But we think on the evidence before the learned Judicial Commissioner that the petitioner was not entitled to a decree. He alleged in his petition adultery of his wife with one Sydney Judd, and he further ...
Tag this Judgment!Khanderao Shidramappa Desai Vs. Chanmallappa Shiddappa Torgal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom364; (1924)26BOMLR364
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession ofthe suit lands from three defendants alleging that he was apermanent tenant of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In the year 1916,the plaintiff had filed a suit to recover possession of the suitlands from the sons of his sub-tenant. He succeeded in obtain-ing a decree on December 19, 1917. The decree was confirmedin appeal. Meanwhile the sub-tenants handed the land over todefendants Nos. 1 and 2, who leased it to defendant No. 3.When the plaintiff filed a Darkhast, he was obstructed inobtaining possession by defendant No. 3. So he filed a mis-cellaneous application to get the obstruction removed. Defend-ant No. 3 opposed the application which was dismissed on June7, 1919.2. The present suit was filed on July 30, 1923. Article 11 A ofthe Indian Limitation Act would apply to the suit. But theplaintiff contends that he is entitled to include the two monthsrequired to serve notice on defendants Nos. 1 and 2 who wereGovernment wards a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »