Mumbai Court March 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.
Mahomed Rahimtulla Haji Joosab Vs. Esmail Allarakhia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR549
Salvesen, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Bombay of September 22, 1920, which set aside an order of the Subordinate Judge of Thana, dated October 5, 1918. The appellant derives such title as he has to the property in dispute from the widow of Balabhai, a Mahommedan resident in Bombay. When she sold the property, the widow professed to act for herself and as guardian of her minor children. The transaction was, however, challenged by Banemiya, the only son of Balabhai then surviving, and by others representing the rest of the family, by a suit raised in 1914 in the Thana Court, in which they claimed that the sale by the widow should be set aside in so far as the shares of the son and daughters were concerned. In that suit, which ultimately came to depend before the High Court of Bombay, Banemiya and his co-plaintiffs, on February 26, 1918, obtained a decree against the appellant which is thus expressed:--The plaintiffs will have six months within which to pay th...
Vishnu Narayan Deo Vs. Keshav Gajanar Patbhare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.474
Norman Macleod, 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 the 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 9th December 1919. The Judge, however, remarks:Now minor having attained majority sues. But his birth certificate or evidence to prove his minority and to bring claim in 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 9th December 1898. But the real p...
Chhotubhai Bhimbhai Vs. Dajibhai Ukabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom472; (1924)26BOMLR432
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Dajibhai Ukabhai presented a petition that Manibhai should be adjudicated insolvent. The petition was opposed by another creditor in whose favour Manibhai had executed certain mortgage bonds. The petitioner alleged that these mortgage bonds had been executed in order to defeat or delay Manibhai's creditors. An order of adjudication was passed on the petition. Chhotubhai has filed an appeal against that order, but he has not made the insolvent a party to the appeal. Consequently the appeal is not competent. Even if it were, there is no ground for reversing the decision of the Court below as the petition was presented within three months of the alleged act of insolvency. Under Rule 27(4) framed by the High Court under the Provincial Insolvency Act, the petitioner had to deposit Rs. 150. The petition was returned to the petitioner in order that it might be presented with the necessary deposit. As the Court was closed on April 24, 1921, for vacation, the pet...
Velji Bhimsey and Co. Vs. Bachoo Bhaidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom118; (1924)26BOMLR349; 87Ind.Cas.199
Macieod, C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for wrongful arrest and imprisonment.2. The suit was dismissed by Mr. Justice Mulla and on an appeal from that decision, the Judges of the Appeal Court differed. The Acting Chief Justice was of opinion that there should be a decree for the plaintiff for Rs. 100 as damages. Mr. Justice Crump was of opinion that the appeal should be dismissed. Under Clause 30 of the Letters Patent, the opinion of the senior Judge prevailed. Accordingly there was a decree for the plaintiff for Rs. 100. But under Section 22 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, as the plaintiff had recovered less than Rs. 300, no order was made with regard to his costs in the trial Court.3. The plaintiff has now appealed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.4. The facts of the case as set out in the judgment of the Acting Chief Justice are that the firm of Velji Bhimsey and Co. filed a suit against the present plaintiff and his two minor brothers as ...
Nemichand Bhickchand Marwadi Vs. Kevalchand Jasraj Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom440; (1924)26BOMLR380
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The petitioner in this case applies to the Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He was a minor and applied through his next friend for permission to sue as a pauper. The minor claimed that he had been adopted by one Parvati who died in April 1920 and his claim to have been adopted by her was resisted by the opponents. The Judge said:--The minor was the only child of his parents. The father had a shop and the mother ornaments of about Rs. 1500. Besides the father has left a house in Marwar. It is said that the father sold his shop and wife's ornaments before his death, but this is not satisfactorily proved. The adoption deed is not produced, and is said to be missing. No certified copy is produced. These facts show that the applicant is not a pauper and the claim is doubtful. 2. We do not think that the Judge has rightly dealt with the application. On the question whether or not the applicant had sufficient means to pay the Court fees, it would ...
Nemichand Bhickchand Marwadi Vs. Kenalchand Jasraj Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-10-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.748
1. The petitioner in this case applies to the Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He was a minor and applied through his next friend for permission to sue as a pauper. The minor claimed that he had been adopted by one Parvati who died in April 1920 and his claim to have been adopted by her was resisted by the opponents. The Judge said:The minor was the only child of his parents. The father had a shop and the mother ornaments of about Rs. 1,500. Besides the father has left a house in Marwar. It is said that the father sold his shop and wife's ornaments before his death, but this is not satisfactorily proved. The adoption deed is not produced, and is said to be missing. No certified copy is produced. These facts show that the applicant is not a pauper and the claim is doubtful.2. We do not think that the Judge has rightly dealt with the application. On the question whether or not the applicant had sufficient means to pay the Court-fees, it would not be sufficient for ...
Pandurang Veduram Vs. Mohan Chhatrabhuj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.178
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit to recover Rs. 112-8-0 from the defendant with costs and interest representing the estate of the deceased Chhatrabhuj. The defendant denies the claim. On the record it appears that issues were raised, the Judge found on the issues and rejected the claim with costs. An application was made to this Court, in revision on the ground that the Court, on the day of the hearing when an application was made for adjournment as the plaintiff was ill, rejected the application and dismissed the suit wrongly. If the plaintiff was absent and the pleader had no instructions to conduct the suit then there was no reason for the Court to raise issues or if issues were raised to find on them. If the plaintiff does not appear either in person or by a pleader who has instructions to go on with the suit, then the suit must be dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8. In such a case the party aggrieved by the order can apply for a review of the order or apply for an order to set a...
Nagindas Motilal Vs. Nilaji Moroba Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom390; (1924)26BOMLR395
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the decision of the Division Court on November 23, 1921, refusing to excuse the delay of the applicants in the presentation of their petition for a certificate of appeal to the Privy Council. The learned Judges who constituted the Court disagreed as to whether the delay should be excused. Accordingly under Clause 36 of the Letters Patent the opinion of the senior Judge prevailed, which was to the effect that the delay should not be excused. Consequently it became unnecessary to decide whether the certificate should be granted. I should state that one consolidated rule had been granted both in the above application to excuse delay and in the above petition for a certificate. They were respectively Civil Applications No. 615 of 1921 and No. 681 of of 1921, and both of them were before the Division Court Similarly the present appeal before us is headed in both the above applications, although that does not appear fr...
ibrahim MohidIn Mhate Vs. Krishnaji Laxman Bhagvat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom459; (1924)26BOMLR421
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1.The question in this second appeal is whether defendant No. 4, the present appellant, is entitled to rely on Exhibit 36 as preventing a forfeiture of the lands conveyed to him under a sale-deed referred to in that exhibit, on the ground that the consent of the Khot had not been obtained. Exhibit 36 was given to the appellant by defendant No. 5 the managing Khot for a consideration of Rs. 100. It has been contended that although he was a managing Khot he did not execute the deed in his representative capacity, but that is a mere formality and could not be regarded as fatal to the appellant's contention. Admittedly defendant No. 5 at the time he executed Exhibit 36 was the managing Khot, and therefore, the real question is whether his consent to the transfer came within the meaning of Section 9 of the Khoti Settlement Act which provides that permanent tenancies shall be heritable, but not otherwise transferable without the consent of the Khot, unless certain fa...
Hosbanna Devanna Naik Vs. Devanna Sannappa Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom444; (1924)26BOMLR424
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit for partition against the first defendant his father and defendants Nos. 2 to 6 his step-brothers. He claimed one-seventh share in the family lands, house, moveables, ornaments and trade of the joint family. Honamma, the wife of the first defendant, was afterwards added as a party respondent in the appeal. The lower Court passed a partition decree directing that the plaintiff should be declared the owner of the one-seventh share in all the properties of the joint family.2. In appeal, the question arose whether Honamma was entitled to a share in the partition. In Jairam Nathu v, Nathu Shamji I.L.R. (1906) 31 Bom. 54 : 8 Bom. L.R. 632 a partition suit was filed by a Hindu son against his father and brothers. It was held that the father's wife on partition was entitled to a share equal to that of the son, but from her share the value of any stridhan received by her as a gift from her father-in-law or husband would have to be deduct...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »