Mumbai Court June 1924 Judgments
Gadigappa Chanbasappa Malkarjun Vs. Shidappa Gurushidappa Yalehalli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom495; (1924)26BOMLR817; 83Ind.Cas.155
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The few facts, which have a bearing on the points arising in the appeal, may be briefly stated.2. A consent decree was passed in May 1909. The execution proceedings were transferred to the Collector. Certain im-moveable property of the judgment-debtor was sold on June 9, 1914, and purchased by the auction-purchaser who is now represented by his heir the respondent No. 1. The judgment-debtor applied to the Mamlatdar on July 4, for setting aside the sale and deposited the amount required by rule 89 of Order XXI of the Civil Procedure Code. The Mamlatdar had no authority, under Rule 17 of the rules then in force relating to sales by the Collector, to accept this application. But instead of referring the applicant to the civil Court he accepted the deposit and asked the applicant to appear before the civil Court on August 8. He sent the deposit and probably the application also to the Court: but that application, i...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Baburao Sonar Vs. Ramchandra Rajaram Sonar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom22; (1924)26BOMLR836; 84Ind.Cas.378
Lallubhai Shah Kt., Actg. C.J.1. It is necessary to state a few facts for the purposes of this appeal. A suit for partition was filed by Ramchandra in April 1916. On July 29, 1918, this matter was referred to arbitration through the Court. Apparently the arbitrators could not agree, and we have on the record a report of one of the arbitrators dated June 4, 1919. Then the matter was referred to an umpire. He made his first award apparently on November 29, 1920, but the Court remitted the matter for reconsideration to him on the same day. On October 7, 1921, he prepared an award with the statement of a special case for the opinion of the Court. In that statement of the case the following three questions were stated by the umpire:--1. Does plaintiff prove that the ornaments mentioned in the plaint are in the possession of the defendants and whether the same are joint?2. Does defendant prove Rajaram was handed over ornaments worth Rs. 40,011 in 1895?3. Does defendant prove that ornaments w...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mukundlal Bansilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR721
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. This application arises out of proceedings taken by the Inspector of Cotton Excise, Bombay Presidency, against the accused. In the complaint that was lodged on August 3, 1923, before the District Magistrate, the complainant alleged that, on April 14, 1923, he went to the Raja Bahadur Motilal Mills of Poona, of which the accused was the owner, and asked him to give reasonable facilities for the inspection of certain records showing production of mixed cotton and silk goods. At about 9 A.M. when he went there the accused gave instructions to his servants that facilities should be given to the complainant. The complainant waited up to 2 P.M., but he had not been able to get until then the inspection of the I.L.R. (1892) Mad, 221. records and of the godown which he wanted. When the accused returned at about 2 p. M. he was said to have refused to let him have access to the godown and to the records which he wanted, and accordingly charged him under Section 25, ...
Tag this Judgment!Lachhmi Narayan Agarwala Vs. Rameshvar Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1140
Dunedin, J.1. In this case, which has been heard ex parte, Sir George Lowndes has said everything that could be said on behalf of the appellants, but he has not created any doubt in their lordships' minds that the judgment of the High Court at Patna was right. It is clear to their lordships that the proviso (a) of Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 is of equal ambit with the body of the section, and that just as an instrument cannot be acted upon, that is to say, nothing can be recovered under it unless it has a proper stamp, so the proviso provides that if there is not a proper stamp it may be put on afterwards on payment of a penalty and the instrument then becomes effective.2. Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal be dismissed....
Tag this Judgment!Vajesingji Joravarsingji Nayak Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1143
Dunedin, J.1. In these consolidated appeals the three Naiks of Tanda, Chandwana and Katwada respectively, sue the Indian Government for a declaration that they are proprietors of the whole lands in the Talukas belonging to them and that they are not bound to accept a lease of the same in the terms offered to them by the Government in 1907. They admit that they are bound to pay a jammabundi or revenue contribution but contend that there the right of the Government of India ends. Their demand was refused by the District Judge and bis judgment was confirmed on appeal by the High Court.2. The lands in question are situated in the Panch Mahals and, previously to 1860, were in the domain of Scindia of Gwalior. On December 12 of that year Scindia ceded this territory to the British Government by a treaty of which Article 3 is as follows:--The Maharaja transfers to the British Government in full Sovereignty the whole of his Highness' possession in the Panch Mahals and to the south of the river...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Rameshwar Singh Vs. Hitendra Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1153
Shaw, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from one judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated March 31, 1921. They partly affirmed and partly reversed a judgment and decree, dated August 4, 1919, of the Subordinate Judge at Darbhanga.2. The appellant is the Raja of Darbhanga. The respondents are members of the junior branch of the Raja's family. As such they are in possession and enjoyment of certain babuana immoveable properties, which were the subject of a babuana grant made by the head of the family many years ago Certain mortgages were granted to the appellant as well as to certain persons outside of the family, and there were mortgage and money decrees existing against the respondents to such an amount that it was thought expedient that a Receiver of the mortgaged properties should be appointed.3. Upon February 2, 1910, the judgment-debtors accordingly filed a petition for the appointment of a Receiver. On the 12th of the same month the appellant,...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Rameshwar Singh Vs. Hitendra Singh (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1161
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated November 19,1920. It reversed a judgment and order of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga dated June 16, 1919. Their Lordships refer to the judgment of the Board : (1924)26BOMLR1153 just announced in the case between the same parties, namely the Maharaja as judgment creditor, and the Receiver of the property and the judgment debtors.2. A Receiver was appointed in 1910 as a Receiver upon the entire estate of the judgment debtors. It is not disputed that this estate included, and still includes, the mortgaged property of Jai Nagar which is in question in this case. Jai Nagar was expressly and by name included in the scheduled properties falling within the order for receivership. Under transactions, upon which it is not necessary to enter, the appellant possessed the property, under an arrangement that he should be debited with the sum of 1,600 rupees per annum in respect thereof. The ar...
Tag this Judgment!Hanamgowda Shidgowda Patil Vs. Irgowda Shivgowda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom9; (1924)26BOMLR829; 84Ind.Cas.374
Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. The facts necessary to understand the points arising in this appeal may be briefly stated. One Shidgowda died in 1894-95 leaving a widow Nilava On May 22, 1900, she mortgaged the two raytava lands which are now in suit with possession to one Shankar Vishnu Gadgil for Rs. 1,200. The consideration was made up of certain debts of her husband to be satisfied and Rs. 528-5-0 taken in cash by Nilava at the time for her maintenance, and for the satisfaction of miscellaneous debts incurred by her and her huaband. Six months after that, i. e. in November 1900, Nilava sold the property in suit to the present defendant for Rs. 1,500, Rs. 1,200 out of which,were in respect of the mortgage just referred to, and Rs. 300 were stated to have been taken in cash to meet the expenses of household afffairs in those days of famine and to pay off other debts. The defendant was the son-in-law of Nilava. In November 1907 the plaintiff was adopted by Nilava, and Nilava died in Decemb...
Tag this Judgment!Shivappa Mallappa Hosmani Vs. Avali Lumanna Ghadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom521; (1924)26BOMLR814; 83Ind.Cas.145
Lallubhai Shah Ag, C.J.1. A few facts connected with this appeal are these. One Lumanna mortgaged the lands in suit to one Balappa in 1900. Lumanna died on February 22, 1912, leaving a widow. The present suit was filed in October 1920 by the widow to recover possession of the mortgaged lands on the footing that the mortgage had come to an end on the death of Lumanna, as he had no power to alienate the lands under the terms of the Sanad. The lands in question were granted under a Sanad in respect of Ghadi services to be rendered by the alienee. These services were supposed to be useful to the village community. The terms of the Sanad were these:--It is hereby declared that the said land shall be continued, so long as the village communities may require the services, as the service emoluments apper, tuning to the office of Ghadi on the following conditions:--that is to say, that the holders thereof shall perform the usual service to the community, and shall continue faithful subjects of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mitra Sen Singh Vs. Janki Kuar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1134
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated March 10, 1919, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which reversed the decree, dated April 25, 1916, of the Subordinate Judge of Fyzabad.2. The appellants are the plaintiffs in a suit for possession of certain villages. They also claimed mesne. profits, a claim which was rightly disallowed and of which no more need be said. What remains is the suit for possession itself. Both the Courts before whom the suit came in India held that the plaintiffs' title to the villages was proved. Their lordships are in entire agreement with that conclusion.3. The trial Judge decreed the suit for possession. The appellate Court dismissed it on ground that the appellants were estopped from denying all claim of the first respondent to hold the villages for life as an under-proprietor without power of alienation. The only question in the appeal is whether the appellants' suit fails by reason of this alleged estoppel. In the opinion of the Boa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »