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.
Ramchandra Adaram Agarwale Vs. Lodha Gouri Bhadbhunji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom368; (1924)26BOMLR288
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiif purchased a house on March 12, 1921. He did not get possession. Accordingly he had to file a suit on June 17, 1921, for possession, on which he got a decree for possession and rent from the date of the suit. He then filed the present suit in the Small Cause Court to recover rent for the house prior to the date of the suit. The Judge held that the suit was barred by the previous suit, and accordingly dismissed it. It seems to us that he has missed the real point in the case which does not fall under Section 11, Explanation IV, of the Civil Procedure Code, but under the provisions of Order II. If the claim for possession and the claim for rent prior to the suit for possession are separate causes of action, there is no obligation on the plaintiff to join these two causes of action in the same suit. It is only under the provisions of Order II, Rule 4, that it is possible for a party seeking Civil Extraordinary Application No. 175 of 1923, f...
Sorabji Rustomji Parsi Vs. Ramjilal Devjibhai Pardeshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom392; (1924)26BOMLR321
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The petitioner had tiled Suit No. 1991 of 1923 in the Small Cause Court, Poona, against the opponent. Three days after, the opponent filed Suit No. 2141 against the petitioner in the same Court. Both suits were fixed for hearing on July 27, 1923. When the opponent's suit was called on neither the petitioner nor his pleader nor his Gumasta were present, and accordingly an ex parte decree was passed. The opponent and his pleader were still in Court to defend the petitioner's suit when the petitioner's Gumaata and his pleader arrived in Court and asked that the ex parte decree should be set aside and the suit restored to the file, upon which the Court said that the matter would be considered on a proper written application being made, and the petitioner's suit was adjourned. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree was made on July 28, 1923, and the matter was adjourned, till August 30, when the Judge dismissed the application. We have more than once lai...
Judawan Prasad Vs. Shatrughan Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR568
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces, reversing a decree of the District Judge at Raipur, which had dismissed the suit.2. There are two questions in the appeal. One has reference to the adoption of a child who has been for twenty-four years in possession, since the alleged date of adoption, of a certain village property. The other point in the appeal is one of limitation.3. Their Lordships, however, have come to a certain conclusion on the first of these two points, which renders it unnecessary to deal with the second.4. On a question of fact of this kind, their Lordships simply announce the decision of the Board, which is to the effect that they entirely agree in substance with the decree pronounced by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner. That decree, while reversing the decree of the District Judge, contains certain observations with regard to a judicial officer which, in their Lordships' opinion, were, fr...
Ramchandra Adaram Agarwali Vs. Lodha Gouri Bhadhruji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.259
1. In this case the plaintiff purchased a house on March 12, 1921. He did not get possession. Accordingly he had to file a suit on June 17, 1921, for possession, on which he got a decree for possession and rent from the date of the suit. He then filed the present suit in the Small Cause Court to recover rent for the house prior to the date of the suit. The Judge held that the suit was barred by the previous suit, and accordingly dismissed it. It seems to us that he has missed the real point in the case which does not fall under Section 11, Explanation IV, of the Civil Procedure Code, but under the provisions of Order II. If the claim for possession and the claim for rent prior to the suit for possession are separate causes of action, there is no obligation on the plaintiff to join these two causes of action in the same suit. It is only under the provisions of Order II, Rule 4, that it is possible for seeking possession to join in that suit a claim for mesne profits prior to the suit. I...
SaifIn Rasul Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom385; 83Ind.Cas.342
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The accused was charged with two offences, one under Section 42 of the Prisons Act IX of 1894, read with Article 485 of the Bombay Jail Manual, 1911, the other under Section 161, Indian Penal Code. There can be no doubt on the facts found by the Magistrate that the accused had taken a bundle of newspapers from one of the prisoners on a request that he should deliver the newspapers outside the Jail premises. That would be an offence under Section 42 of the Prisons Act, taken in conjunction with Article 485 of the Bombay Jail Manual, 1911, and there can be no doubt that the conviction under that charge was correct. Although that was not accepted when the rule was applied for, it is now conceded.2. Then the accused was charged with having accepted a rupee for taking the newspapers outside the Jail premisses which, according to a chit found in his possession, the prisoner had given to him in order to get change. Even if that story was true, it would be an offence aga...
Lakshman Maruti Jadhav Vs. Maruti Lakshman Teli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom344; (1924)26BOMLR284
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This rule must be discharged with costs. Section 115 of the Code does not apply to an order of a Court refusing to grant a review of its decision. The application for review was based on the allegation that the present applicants could bring evidence of Parvati's remarriage. There is no reason, as the Judge finds, why Parvati was not called when the case was decided. The Judge said:--I am of opinion that as Parvati's existance was known to plaintiffs, as their heirship to Ganpati was disputed and there was an expression on it, it was their duty to produce evidence of Parvati's remarriage in the lower Court. They produced no evidence. The lower Court found in their favour without sufficient evidence and when the finding was set aside in revision they cannot be allowed to produce the evidence now. Supposing a finding of fact by a lower Court is reversed in appeal the party affected cannot be allowed to produce further evidence which he might have produced in the lo...
Laxminarayan Bijeram Vs. G.i.P. Railway Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom386; (1924)26BOMLR285
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. Plaintiff delivered seven bags of miscellaneous goods to the defendant company for carriage from Bombay to Dhulia via Chalisgaon. He signed risk note in Form B. Six bags were delivered correctly at Dhulia. One bag unfortunately, instead of being taken out at Chalisgaon, was carried on to Jalgaon, and some days afterwards was brought back and delivered to the plaintiff. Plaintiff complained that there was a shortage of nineteen seers in the contents. The defendant company admitted the shortage. They claimed, however, exemption from liability on the strength of the risk note. We think there was a clear deviation from the route originally intended when the goods were delivered for transit. In these circumstances, we think that in any event the onus would lie upon the railway company, if they claimed exemption under the risk note, to prove that the shortage had not occurred during the deviation. That they never attempted to do. The case we have been referred to, viz....
Anjirabai Gulabrao Powar Vs. Pandurang Balkrishna Powar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom441; (1924)26BOMLR326
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The genealogy of the parties in this appeal is as follows:- Babaji |-------------------------------------| |Gopal Kesu =Lakshmi (Def. 1) | ------------------------------------- | |Balkrishna(Plaintiff)(adopted) Maruti (died) Gulabrao =(1) Putala (died) (adopted) =(2) Manjula (died) (Def. 2.)Gopal and Kesu, the sons of Babaji, were divided. The plaintiff in this case is the grandson of Gopal. Kesu died leaving a widow Lakshmi, the first defendant, and a son Maruti. Maruti had two wives, but both died before him, so that on Maruti's death his mother Lakshmi succeeded to him as his heiress. Subsequently she adopted the second defendant. The plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaration that the second defendant is not a validly adopted son of the first defendant. The trial Judge said:-As Maruti left no widow or issue, the defendant No. 1 bad authority according to Hindu law to adopt a son to her husband. I therefore find the third issue in the affirmative.2. The appellate...
Angirbai Gulabrao Powar Vs. Pandurang Balkrishna Powar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.185
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The genealogy of the parties in this appeal is as follows: Babaji | _________________________________________ | | Gopal Kesu | =Lakshmi (Def. 1.) Balkrishna | (Plaintiff) _______________________ (adopted) | | Maruti (died) Gulabrao = (1)Putala (died) (adopted) = (2) Manjula (died) (Def. 2.)2. Gopal and Kesu, the sons of Babaji, were divided. The plaintiff in this case is the grandson of Gopal. Kesu died leaving a widow Lakshmi, the first defendant, and a son Maruti. Maruti had two wives, but both died before him, so that on Maruti's death his mother Lakshmi succeeded to him as his heiress. Subsequently she adopted the second defendant. The plaintiff seeks to obtain a declaration that the second defendant is not a validly adopted son of the first defendant. The Trial Judge said:As Maruti left no widow or issue, the defendant No. 1 had authority according to Hindu Law to adopt a son to her husband. I, therefore, find the third issue in the affirmative.3. The app...
Sakalchand Moti Vs. Ambaram Haribhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom380; (1924)26BOMLR280
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. There were two brothers Sakalchand Moti and Jadav Moti who entered into a partnership to supply bricks to a certain company A field was purchased in partnership, but the sale deed was taken in the name of Sakalchand. Disputes arose between the partners, and two suits were filed in which other parties were impleaded. It is not necessary to refer to the detailed pleadings. The suits were referred to the arbitrament of a pleader of the Court by the joint wishes of the parties on January 10, 1922. The arbitrator gave his awards on August 31. 1922. Objections were tiled against the awards by both the brothers. The mam ground that the applicants relied upon was that the awards were illegal and void as they were not delivered within the time fixed by the Court. There were also allegations that the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct.2. It was represented to me when the application for revision was entertained that the time for filing the award as originally fixed in the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »