Skip to content

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.

Feb 01 1924

Jivabai Pitamberdas Vs. Teja Sama

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Feb-01-1924

Reported in: AIR1924Bom398; (1924)26BOMLR282

Norman Macleod, C.J.1. A suit was filed by the present petitioner-plaintiff in the Small Cause Court at Ahmedabad to recover Rs.154 on a promissory note. The judge awarded only Rs. 45-12-0, calculating the rate of interest at nine per cent. An application was made in revision to this Court which held that the rate of interest was insufficient and sent back the case to the lower Court for disposal having regard to the observations made in the judgment, and further directed that the costs in the High Court were to be costs in the cause. Thereupon the learned Judge raised the amount of interest to eighteen per cent and passed a decree in favour of the petitioner for RS. 61-6-0 with proportional costs. These costs would necessarily include the costs incurred in the High Court. The petitioner then filed a Darkhast to recover the decretal amount and costs, including therein the costs in the High Court which came to Rs. 87-13-0. That application was wrong to this extent that the plaintiff cou...


Feb 01 1924

Ramabai Vs. Harnabai

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Feb-01-1924

Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR308

Shaw, J.1. The case for the appellant has been stated with admirable clearness and brevity by his counsel, but their Lordships do not think it necessary to call for any argument for the respondents.2. This is an appeal from a decree of December 5, 1918, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which affirmed a decree dated November 1, 1916, of the Court of the Additional First Class Subordinate Judge at Poona.3. The only question submitted to the Board, and now subsisting, is as to the condition of body, and possibly of mind, of one Narayan Mawal. The appellant maintains that Narayan Mawal was so afflicted with leprosy as to deprive him of the position of being joint owner of certain family property, and, secondly, to deprive him of the ability to make a valid adoption of a son. His natural son had died, and the adoption was made a few weeks before his death. Had Narayan not been a leper, this natural and proper act could not have been challenged.4. In the opinion of the Board, no qu...


Feb 01 1924

Chanbasappa Nagappa Haveri Vs. Hotjbasappa Basappa Motibeknnur

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Feb-01-1924

Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR317

Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point which does not seem to be covered by any distinct authority. The facts are somewhat confusing. One Basappa Murgeppa filed a suit against Chanbasappa and another in the Haveri Court, in the Dharwar District, in which the High Court passed a decree on April 2, 1914, directing that the plaintiff should recover from the defendant a certain sum of money and costs2. That decree was transferred by the Haveri Court to the Hubli Court for execution. A darkhast was taken out on September 2, 1914, but before execution proceedings could go any further the decree was attached by a creditor of Murgeppa who had obtained a decree against Basappa in the Haveri Court on April 7, 1916. On August 8, 1916, the darkhast in the Haveri Court was disposed of as the plaintiff did not apply for transfer of execution to the Hubli Court as directed. But although the darkhast was disposed of the Haveri Court seems to have been of opinion that its attach...


Feb 01 1924

Hashimbi Yakubsaheb Beg Vs. Ajamatbi Maktumsaheb

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Feb-01-1924

Reported in: AIR1924Bom410; (1924)26BOMLR337

Shah, J.1. The question in this second appeal relates to the validity of the gift made by Kamalbeg in. favour of his daughter Hashimbi, who is the plaintiff.2. The facts relating to the gift are not in dispute now. On November 23, 1899, Kamalbeg made a gift of a house and certain Inam land described in the deed of gift which is registered. The recitals in the deed relating to possession thereof are as follows:--At present the said land has been leased out to another person for cultivation. On the expiration of the term of the lease you should take the same into your possession and carry on Vahivat thereof. The house is this day delivered into your possession for Vahivat.3. The land which is referred to as having been given in lease was at the date of the gift in possession of Venkangowda on terms, which are stated in an award between the plaintiff and Venkangowda's representative as follows:--Before this gift was made the plaintiff's father had, on April 27, 1898, mortgaged this land f...


Feb 01 1924

Ramjivan Nevatia Vs. H. Bhikaji and Co.

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Feb-01-1924

Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR442

Atkinson, J.1. Their Lordships have carefully considered this case during the adjournment, and they do not think it necessary to call upon counsel for the respondents. They think it is clear upon the facts that the first purchaser of these goods can get any number put upon them which he pleases; that is to say, that the owner of goods in the hands of a millowner can have this done. When the numbers are attached to the goods in that, way, the view their Lordships entertain is correctly expressed in the judgment of the High Court printed at p. 45 of the record:--The numbers put by the mills on the bales at the request of the original purchasers would convey no meaning to an outsider. To Ghya and Company they indicated the width of the pieces in each bale. When the bales passed out of their hands, they were merely reference numbers. It would have been just the same if the numbers had been 501 and 502. There was no evidence that it was recognised in the market that the last two digits in t...


Feb 01 1924

Chanbasappa Nagappa Haveri Vs. Holibasappa Basappa Motibennur and anr.

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Feb-01-1924

Reported in: AIR1924Bom383; (1924)ILR48Bom485

Norman Macleod, Kt. C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point which does not seem to be covered by any distinct authority. The facts are somewhat confusing.-One Basappa Murgeppa filed a suit against Chanbasappa and another in the Haveri Court, in the Dharwar District, in which the High Court passed a decree on April 2, 1914, directing that the plaintiff should recover from the defendant a certain sum of money and costs. That decree was transferred by the Haveri Court to the Hubli Court for execution. A Darkhast was taken out on September 2, 1914, but before execution proceedings could go any further the decree was attached by a creditor Murgeppa who had obtained a decree against Basappa in the Haveri Court on April 7, 1916. On August 8, 1916, the Darkhast in the Haveri Court was disposed of as the plaintiff did not apply for transfer of execution to the Hubli Court as directed. But although the Darkhast was disposed of the Haveri Court seems to have been of opinion that its attach...


Feb 01 1924

Chanbasappa Nagappa Haveri Vs. Holibasappa Basappa Motibennur

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Feb-01-1924

Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.239

Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting point which does not seem to be covered by any distinct authority. The facts are somewhat confusing. One Basappa Murgeppa filed a suit against Chanbasappa and another in the Haveri Court, in the Dharwar District, in which the High Court passed a decree on April 2, 1914, directing that the plaintiff should recover from the defendant a certain sum of money and costs. That decree was transferred by the Haveri Court to the Hubli Court for execution. A darkhast was taken out on September 2, 1914, but before execution proceedings could go any further the decree was attached by a creditor of Murgeppa who had obtained a decree against Basappa in the Haveri Court on April 7, 1916. On August 8, 1916, the darkhast in the Haveri Court was disposed of as the plaintiff did not apply for transfer of execution to the Hubli Court as directed. But although the darkhast was disposed of the Haveri Court seems to have been of opinion that its attachm...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial