Mumbai Court February 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.
Timappa Ganpat Gudgar Vs. Manjaya Subraya Hebbar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom425; (1924)26BOMLR362; 87Ind.Cas.545
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The question in this application for revision is whether the Judge was right in holding that the appeal was time-barred on the ground that two separate periods could not be excluded, one for obtaining a copy of the judgment and another for obtaining a copy of the decree. In this ease there was an interval between the two periods. The case, therefore, comes within the decision in Silamban Chetty v. Ramanadhan Chetty I.L.R. (1909) Mad. 256). There the decree was passed on October 12, 1905. The respondent applied for a copy of the decree on October 18, and obtained it on December 19. Then he applied for a copy of the judgment on December 22 and obtained it on February 16, 1906. The Court held that the party was entitled to deduct both the periods, and consequently, the appeal was in time. Reference was made to the case of Raman Chetti v. Kadirvalu (898) 8 M.L. J 148 where the two periods overlapped, and it was decided that the overlapping period should not be counte...
Adiveva Fakirgowda Patil Vs. Chanmallgowda Ramangowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom393; (1924)26BOMLR360
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the land described in the plaint with past and future mesne profits. He has succeeded in both the lower Courts. The defendants have how appealed to the High Court. The property in suit was Vatan property in the hands of one Fakirgowda who died leaving behind him a minor son Ramangowda. Ramangowda died unmarried and under age in 1915. Consequently the Vatan property was inherited by Chanmallgowda, a divided brother of Fakirgowda. In October 1919, Adiveva adopted Rudrappa to her husband. He is now defendant No. 4 He contests the plaintiff's claim on the ground that he is the owner of the property as the adopted son of Fakirgowda. There can no longer be any dispute with regard to the validity of the adoption of the fourth defendant. In any event in this case it could not be disputed as it is not suggested that the plaintiff was a co-parcener with Fakirgowda so that he might object to the adoption by Fakirgowda's widow. The...
Bhaskar Mahadev Parsekar Vs. Shankar Vithal Pednekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom467; (1924)26BOMLR418
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. and Shah, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover from the defendant possession of the plaint property by removing his obstruction, and if necessary by setting aside the order in Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1918, with costs and future profits. The defendant is the purchaser of the land in suit from one Khatkhate. The original owner of the property was one Narayan. Khatkhate sued Narayan in Suit No. 124 of 1916 for specific performance of a contract of sale of the suit land, for execution to him of a duly registered sale-deed, and for possession of the land in suit. A decree was passed in that suit for specific performance on December 15, 1917. As Narayan failed to excecute a sale-deed an order was passed, under Order XXI, Rule 34, Sub-rule (5), of the Code, for the execution of a sale-deed in favour of Khatkhate, and this was executed on February 26, 1918.2. Meanwhile one Ankush got a money decree against Narayan on September 15, 1916, and on July 27, 1917, ...
Gangabisan Jeevanram Marwadi Vs. Vallabhdas Shankarlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom433; (1924)26BOMLR464; 87Ind.Cas.703
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out facts and dealing with other questions, said:] With regard to the mesne profits, we do not think that the auction purchasers were bound to account to Vallabh for mesne profits before proceedings were taken for partition of the properties. The learned Judge has allowed mesne profits on the ground that the auction purchasers were in possession wrongfully. But although the purchaser of a particular portion of joint family property, or the urchaser of the interest of one of the members of the family in any particular item of joint property may not be entitled to possession, it follows, if he gets possession, that his possession cannot be considered as wrongful possession against the other members and he cannot be liable to account for the mesne profits. All that the law allows, as we understand it, is that a co-parcener is entitled to recover possession from an outsider of the joint family property or any portion of it. But if he...
Makanji Mavji Vs. Bhukhandas Nagardas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom428; (1924)26BOMLR415
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act asking us to set aside an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat on June 30, 1923, in the following circumstances. One Bhukhandas Nagardas had obtained a decree against one Merwanji Rustomji Mody for Rs. 420 and costs. The plaintiff applied for execution of the decree against the defendant by his arrest. Notice was issued upon the judgment-debtor calling upon him to show cause why he should not be arrested in execution of the decree against him. As the judgment-debtor did not appeal to show cause, the Court, on January 19, 1923, made an order for his arrest. In pursuance of the warrant the judgment-debtor was arrested and brought before the Subordinate Judge. On February 27, 1923, an order was made on an application by the judgment-debtor under Section 55(4) of the Civil Procedure Code that he wanted a month's time to make an application to be declared an insol...
Malraju Venkata Ramkrishna Rao Garu Vs. Koppuravuri Sriramulu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR563
Shaw, J.1. The Board does not think it necessary to call upon counsel for the respondents.2. Their Lordships in the present case think that no necessity is laid upon them to enter into any details of fact.3. The entire question for determination between the parties to the appeal is whether this suit is barred by limitation. And the settlement of that question depends upon the fixture of the date of the death of a certain widow called Lakshmi Papamma Rao Garu.4. The appellants who seek to dispossess the respondents maintain that this widow died in the year 1898, on a date four days within the lapse of twelve years prior to the initiation of the suit, whereas the respondents have maintained successfully before the High Court that that fact has not been established. It is admitted that the onus of proving this averment rests upon the appellants. The respondents own averment on the subject is that the lady died about three years before, namely, in November, 1895.5. Has it been satisfactori...
Shivpalsing Bhagvatsing Pardeshi Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom369; (1924)26BOMLR371
Norman Macleod C.J.1. The plaintiff tiled this suit asking for a permanent injunction against the defendant, the Secretary ofState for India in Council, restraining him from demolishing theshed standing in Survey Number 32, pot No. 3, in the village ofVangaon, Taluka Dahanu, and from forfeiting the said SurveyNumber 32 and for the refund of the sum of Rs. 100 recovered asfine from the plaintiff by the defendant. The suit was dismissedby the District Judge on July 31, 1922.2. It is not necessary for the purpose of this appeal to deal withthe history of the case before October 24, 1915, by which datethe cattle shed previously erected on the ground by the plaintiffhad been demolished. On October 24, 1915, the plaintiff appliedto the Collector for permission to erect a shed in the SurveyNumber for his cattle. In November by an order Exhibit 35the matter was referred by the Collector to the AssistantCollector. The plaintiff getting no answer to his applicationand hearing that the matter had...
Shivlingappa Mallappa Sadalgi Vs. Shidmallappa Nurandappa Kapali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom359; (1924)26BOMLR345
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. These are execution proceedings in a decree passed on December 13, 1906. We are now in 1924. It might be suggested that the law of procedure was at fault and has been the cause of delay. But that is not the fact. The relevant provisions of the Code are quite adequate but they have not been complied with, as they have not been understood by the Judges in the Courts below. The decree was originally passed by the Chikodi Court, and was transferred for execution to the Gokak Court on January 11, 1907. The Gokak Court would continue to have jurisdiction to execute the decree until it certified to the Chikodi Court that the decree had been executed, or where it failed to execute the same, the circumstances attending such failure. There is no evidence whatever in this case that the Gokak Court certified as required by law either the execution of the decree or the failure to execute it, to the Chikodi Court, and once that fact has been realised, it will be seen how the l...
Malhar Narayan Prabhu Vs. Vishnu Sonu Gavada
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom351; (1924)26BOMLR392
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The facts in this second appeal are as follows. The second defendant obtained a decree in the, Kudal Court in Sawantwadi against five persons, the plaintiff, his two brothers Gopal and Govind, and his two sisters-in-law Ramabai and Baibai. It would appear from the Roznama in that suit that the plaintiff was not served with the summons Gopal and Govind alone defended the suit, in which a decree was passed awarding a certain sum of money against. the five defendants The appeal against that decision was unsuccessful. Thereafter the decree was transferred to the Malvan Court in British territory for execution. The decree was sent to the Collector, who attached the properties in suit and put them up for sale. The first defendant purchased the property at the auction. The sale was confirmed and possession was given on December 20, 1916.2. The plaintiff filed this suit in 1918 for a declaration that the decree was void and unenforceable against him and that, therefore, ...
Adiveppa Shidlingappa Hanchimal Vs. Pragji Mohanji Lohana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom366; (1924)26BOMLR388
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. Suit No. 409 of 1920 was filed in the Court, of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Dharwar, by certain plaintiffs against the firm of Shivji Kuverji & Co. to recover Rs. 42,604-12-0 which it was alleged was due to the plaintiffs in their account with the defendant firm. The five partners in the defendant firm were mentioned in the title to the plaint, and attempts were made to serve the summons on all of them. The record of the case shows that defendants Nos 1 to 4 were absent though duly served, while defendant No. 5 at the first hearing raised certain contentious which were dealt with as preliminary issues. After those issues were decided, the Judge proceeded to hear the case on the merits when no one appeared on behalf of the defendants, and, on January 11, 1922, a decree was passed for Rs 42, 604-12-0 and costs against the firm of Shivji Kuverji & Co. Under Order XXX, rule 3, the summons could be served either upon any one or more of the partners, or at the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »