Mumbai Court March 1924 Judgments
K.C. Shriman Nedan Rajah Kotakal Vs. the Malabar Timber Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom412; (1924)26BOMLR541
Fawcett, J.1. This issue comprises two main questions,(i) Whether, as ruled in Holkar v. Dadabhai Cursetji Ashburner I.L.R. (1890) 14 Bom. 353 this Court, has, under Clause 12 of its Letters Patent, jurisdiction in personam in regard to lands outside the original jurisdiction of this Court; and (ii) If so, whether this suit is one in which such jurisdiction can properly be exercised.2. In regard to the first point I think the answer should be in the affirmative, for the following reasons:--(a) The decision in Holkar v. Dadabhai is one that prima facie binds me sitting as a Judge on the Original Side of this Court, and unless it is shown to have been over-ruled, or shaken to an extent that ought to prevent me from following it, I am bound by that decision. In Sundara Bai Sahiba v. Tirumal Rao Sahib I.L.R. (1909) Mad. 131 it is said that the authority of this decision and of Sorabji v. Rattonji I.L.R. (1898) 22 Bom. 701 is considerably shaken, if they are not over-ruled by the later deci...
Tag this Judgment!Manjaya Subraya Vs. Tammaya Vasudeo Shanbhog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom449; (1924)26BOMLR520
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The first defendant executed two Mulgeni leases, one on September 26, 1917, in favour of Vithoba Madhav, and another on January 27, 1917, in favour of Sheshgiri Upendra, for the suit holding agreeing to pay seventeen Mangis of Kuchgi Talsal rice to each of them for the one-third Malki of each of the suit holding and on default to pay interest. On November 14, 1919, the two Maliks by two separate deeds sold their Malki in the suit holding to the plaintiff, including, in the areas sold, the alluvial accretions also. The plaintiff sued to recover arrears of rent Rs. 195-8-0 and proper rent and profit for the accretions in the suit holding with future interest.2. Before the plaintiff purchased the land the District Deputy Collector on September 18, 1919, passed an order under Section 63 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code by which certain alluvial land had been offered to the plaintiff's vendors for a certain price together with payment of the annual assessment, The...
Tag this Judgment!Namdev Tukaram Girme Vs. Vishnu Chintaman Dunakhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom395; (1924)26BOMLR497
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. There was a joint family consisting of Named and his son Savalaram together with Trimbak and Raghunath sons of Namdev's brothers Sopana and Piraji respectively. Savalaram opened a branch shop at Baramati, and from the facts found there is little doubt that that was a family shop, and that Namdev and his brother Sopana, now deceased, advised the present plaintiff to advance moneys to Savalarara for the purposes of the shop. Eventually plaintiff had to file a suit against Savalaram in which a consent decree was passed. In execution of that decree the plaintiff sought to attach certain property, when objections Avere raised to the attachment by Namdev and his nephews. The objections were maintained by the Court, and consequently the plaintiff brought this suit for a declaration that the property was liable to be sold in execution of the decree in Suit No. 30 of 1916 obtained against defendant No. 4, and that the summary order holding that the decree did not bin...
Tag this Judgment!Shridhar Shabaya Jotishi Vs. Janak Shankar Jotishi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom447; (1924)26BOMLR486
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think that the Judge was right in holding that the two receipts showing that the whole of the mortgage money was paid did not require registration. If it had been mentioned that thereby the mortgage had been extinguished then they would come within the provisions of Section 17(b) of the Indian Registration Act. The plaintiff was entitled to show that the mortgage money had been paid, and if he suceeded he would undoubtedly be entitled to recover the mortgaged property. But while he was proving the payment it was not necessary for him to prove that the passing of the receipts would extinguish the mortgage, and that was the distinction referred to in the decision in Shidlingappa v. Chenbasappa I.L.R. (1879) 4 Bom. 285, where it was held on the facts of the case that receipts passed by a mortgagee for sums paid on account of the mortgage debt and exceeding Rs. 100 each, were not inadmissible in evidence for want of registration under Act III of 1877, Section...
Tag this Judgment!Pandu Dagadu Mahar Vs. Jamnadas Chotumal Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom113; (1924)26BOMLR470; 85Ind.Cas.778
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.`1. In this case the plaintiff obtained a decree on November 27, 1907, in the Vadgaon Court in the Poona District, for possession of certain property. By a darkhast No. 29 of 1919 he is now seeking to execute that decree and an objection has been taken by the judgment-debtors that the darkhast was barred by limitation.2. That question depends on a further question whether the darkhast of June 7, 1916, was itself in time. The darkhast before that was dated April 10, 1912, and admittedly unless some of the period between April 10, 1912, and June 7, 1916 is excluded the darkhast of June 7, 1916, was out of time. The darkhast of April 10, 1912, was properly filed in the Vadgaon Court but thereafter as that Court had to sit for a certain number of days in a month at the Haveli Court, a notice was issued that the Judge would be sitting in the Haveli Court to hear that darkhast. The defendants did not appear and the Judge sitting in the Haveli Court made the warrant f...
Tag this Judgment!Hargovind Fulchand Vs. Bhudar Raoji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR601; 83Ind.Cas.932
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This suit was instituted by the plaintiff to recover possession of the suit property which his father had bought at an auction sale in execution of a decree for money which he had obtained against the defendant. The sale was held on September 21, 1908, and was confirmed on October 29, 1908. Thereafter the sale certificate was issued by the Court. The defendant continued in possession and the plaintiff's father did not seek possession. When the plaintiff filed this suit on August 20, 1920, the defendant objected that it was barred by Section 47, Civil Procedure Code.2. Both the lower Courts felt themselves bound to follow the decision of this Court in Sadashiv bin Mahadu, v. Narayan Vithal. I L.R. (1911) 35 Bom. 452, 13 Bom. L.R. 661. The correctness of that decision, although it was not directly in-point, was doubted in Goba Nathu v Sakharam : (1920)22BOMLR1101 , where I stated that I would prefer to follow the decision of the majority of the Full Bench of the Al...
Tag this Judgment!Kalappa Mallappa Hosmani Vs. Kalappa Ningappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom469; (1924)26BOMLR494; 87Ind.Cas.705
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. [His Lordship after stating facts as above, went on:] It is now argued that, even assuming that certain property was assigned by Mallappa. to Ningappa and Basvantppa, they would not hold it as joint tenants but as tenants-in-common, so that when Basvantappa died and his widow re-married his share of the property would go to his heirs. Now it is quite clear that no attempt was made to raise this question in either of the lower Courts. If it was a point of law arising on the issues as framed and on the evidence as led in the trial Court, there is no doubt that in second appeal we could have entertained that point. But it is quite clear that we could not decide this point of law without remanding the ease for further evidence, and that being so the point of law is no longer competent Moreover it may safely be assumed that under the arrangement by which Mallappa divided his property between his children by his two wives it was intended that Ningappa and Basvanta...
Tag this Judgment!M.B. Mehta and Co. Vs. Joseph Heureux
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom422; (1924)26BOMLR382
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are a firm trading in London. In February 1921, they opened negotiations with the defendants' firm in Bombay for the, purpose of entering into business relations with them. Certain terms were arranged on which business was do be done. One of the terms was that each party was to defray the cost of their respective cables. All prices quoted by the plaintiffs were to be c. i. f. c. i. (c. i., that is, commission and interest) Bombay. The price was to include five percent. commission for the defendants. The commission was to be credited to the defendants and was to be remitted to them by the plaintiffs every six months in July and January. The relative documents were to be covered by a draft at sixty days' sight, documents against payment.2. On February 28, 1921, the defendants sent to the plaintiff order No. 2063 for thirty-five tons of soft steel plates of certain dimensions. The price quoted by the plaintiffs being unacceptable no immed...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Narayan Deo Vs. Keshav Gajanan Potbhare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom468; (1924)26BOMLR426
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The: plaintiff filed this suit on a promissory note dated June 10, 1906. The promissory note was taken by his guardian when he was a minor. The plaintiff sought to prove that he. was entitled to sue on the note within three years of his attaining majority. It does appear from the. Roznama of the case that after it had been called for hearing on several occasions, Exhibit 7 A was produced purporting to be a certificate as regards the majority of the plaintiff having occurred on December 9, 1919. The Judge, however, remarks:--Now minor having attained majority sues. But his birth certificate or evidence to prove his minority and to tiring claim to time is not produced. This is a stale claim of 1906. Hence plaintiff must Have filed his suit with all evidence ready. It is six months since suit, there is no evidence to support plaint.2. I doubt very much whether Exh. 7 A could be considered as evidence that the plaintiff's birth date was December 9, 1898. But the...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyandappa Ayappa Desai Vs. Chanbasappa Dodappa Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR509
Phillimore, J.1. The suit in this case was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bijapur to recover possession of certain vatan lands and other lands of ordinary tenure, the plaintiff making a claim as the nearest agnate to the last male owner, and averring that his title accrued on the death of the latter's widow. The principal defendant, the now respondent, being in possession of the property, pleaded various defences of which the one which is important for present consideration, depends upon the Indian Limitation Act.2. The plaintiff recovered judgment before the Subordinate Judge for possession of the vatan lands, but not of the lands of ordinary tenure. Appeal was taken to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which reversed the decision of the Subordinate Judge and gave judgment for the defendant.M3. From this decree, the representatives of the original plaintiff have appealed to His Majesty in Council. As to the non-vatan lands, the plaintiff acquiesced in the decis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »