Mumbai Court August 1924 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Pandu Vithu Savant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom489; (1924)26BOMLR971; 84Ind.Cas.250
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. In order to be able to deal with the. point arising on this application, it is necessary to state the course which this case has taken in the lower Courts. It appears that a complaint was filed against accused Nos. 1 and 2 in respect of certain sandal-wood trees and branches having been removed from Survey Number 32 at Ramgurwadi by accused No. 1, which was claimed to be the property of the Government. In the complaint there was no reference to any breach of Rule No. 3 under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act. Accused No. 2, who was a forester, was charged with the abetment of this offence. When the charges were framed against the accused, not only were they charged with reference to theft, and abetment of theft in respect of trees and branches from Survey Number 32, but also in respect of the breach and abetment of the breach of the rules under Section 41 of the Indian Forest Act.2. It appears from the judgment of the trial Court that there were seven pa...
Tag this Judgment!Amarsangji Indrasangji Vs. Desai Umed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom290; (1925)27BOMLR91
Marten, J.1. As regards Second Appeals Nos. 554, 634, 642 and 653 of 1922 a rather curious technical position has arisen. In all these cases there was a sole defendant, and the judgment of the trial Court was against that sole defendant. In each of the four cases the sole defendant appealed, but before the appeals came on for hearing he in each case died. But in each case his legal advisers appear to have been unaware of the fact, and accordingly the appeal was allowed to be heard and decided in favour of the defendant inasmuch as the lower appellate Court was in ignorance of the fact that the defendant had in fact in the meanwhile died. So, too, the plaintiffs in each suit were apparently unaware of the fact, and they presented second appeals to this Court in these suits as well as in the remaining twenty-nine companion suits. We have since heard and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeals in these twenty-nine companion suits. 2. We are now asked by the plaintiffs to say that the judgment o...
Tag this Judgment!Gavrishankar Bhaishankar Thakor Vs. Madhavsangji Jesangji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom175; (1925)27BOMLR88
Marten, J.1. The short point in this case is whether Madhavsangji, the deceased defendant, was a Thakor within the meaning of Section 28 of the Broach and Kaira Incumbered Estates Act 1881 (Bom. Act XXI of 1881) and accordingly prevented from mortgaging beyond his own life except with the sanction of the Commissioner. It is said that he id not such a Thakor because the estate in question was taken under management in the lifetime of his brother Shivsangjee, and that accordingly he (Madhavsangji) is not under the same disabilities as his deceased brother would undoubtedly have been under Section 28 on restoration to possession of his property. 2. Now in this case it is stated that there was a liquidation scheme under Section 20 and that the management was afterwards terminated under Section 26. Accordingly under the provisions of that section not only did the management terminate, but the owner was also restored to the possession and enjoyment of the property under management Then the n...
Tag this Judgment!Ladhuram Manormal Marwadi Vs. Sale Mahomed Illiyas Memon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom168
Shah, Ag. C.J.1. The few facts relating to this second appeal are these. On March 9, 1882, a document which is described as Kararnama, was executed by Kashi Bahiru Patil to Hormasji Burjorji in respect of land which is described as Prat Bandi No. 49, Plot No. 1, measuring three acres and two gunthas, the assessment of the land being Re. 0-15-3. Another document was executed by Hormasji Burjorji on the same day, which is described as a rent-note. It will be sufficient to refer to the terms of this rent-note for the purposes of this appeal. After the description of the land, the document contains the following terms:This rent note is passed in respect of the whole land as such. The rent in respect of the land as is included within the boundaries as mentioned above shall be paid by us from this day every year annually at the rate of Rs. 19 per year immediately on the completion of the respective year and in case there happens to be any default in payment as above, then we shall be paying ...
Tag this Judgment!Amarsangji Indrasangji Vs. Ranchhod Jethabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom294; (1925)27BOMLR267
Marten, J.1. These are some thirty-three appeals from the judgment of the District Judge of Ahmedabad reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge and dismissing the plaintiffs' suits with costs. The suits nil raise the same point. They are brought by the plaintiffs as the Thakors of Mohoghar claiming that they hold in joint ownership the wanta of the village of Mehmadpura. This wanta consists in all of 104 acres, of which 94 acres are in dispute in this and the companion suits, so the learned District Judge tells us.2. The principal point in dispute is as to whether the defendants are annual tenants us the plaintiffs contend, or whether they are permanent tenants as the defendants contend. There is a subsidiary point, as to whether, even if the defendants are annual tenants, the plaintiffs are entitled to enhance the rent. It appears that by an alleged notice to quit, dated February 5, 1916, the plaintiffs called on the defendants to pay an increased rent and to sign a writing to t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahableshwar Devershetti Vs. Badku Venka Naij and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom178
Fawcett, J.1. This appeal relates to what is known as Nadgi tenure in the District of Kanara. The defendants are Nadgi tenants of the land in suit. The plaintiff is its owner. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of this land with mesne profits and damages. He alleged that the defendants had failed to comply with the condition, on which they were granted the land, of maintaining it in proper condition as a garden, and that therefore he was entitled to recover the land owing to forfeiture of tenancy by breach of the condition. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who have alone defended the suit contended that they had not neglected the land, and that such neglect as there had been in the last one or two years was not their fault; a hut that was on the land had fallen down, and although the plaintiff had been asked to erect a new hut, he had not done so, with the result that the defendants could not stay on the land and properly look after it. They also denied the plaintiff's right to recover m...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturbhuj Sangji Vs. Mansukhram Motilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom183; (1925)27BOMLR73
Marten, J. 1. This is a second appeal by defendant No. 3 against the judgments of the two lower Courts in favour of the plaintiff. Para (a) of the judgment was a mandatory injunction with reference to the property D of defendants Nos. 1 and 2. They have not appealed, and I need not therefore for the moment consider their case. Para (b) was a mandatory injunction against defendant No. 3 to block up a door on the western aide of his house E, and also in effect to alter the roof of his house by making it all slope towards the east instead of partly to the west and partly to the east as theretofore. Para (c) was an injunction to restrain all the defendants from entering the plaintiff's chowk or from taking any cattle there. What the plaintiff claims to be his chowk is shown in the suit plan. It abuts on the property E of defendant No. 3 and on the adjoining property D of defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. In the Courts below the real point of conflict was this, The plaintiff claimed property A, B ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwandas Rangildas Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom227; (1925)27BOMLR66
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The few facts, which are really not in dispute, relating to this appeal are these. On August 26, 1918, the present plaintiff entered into a contract with the Secretary of State for India in Council for the felling and removal and purchase of timber, fire wood and other things specified in item (a) of the Schedule annexed to the contract from the portion of the reserved forest in the Taloda range of the North Khandesh Division, which is known as Coupe No. 14 of 1918-19 of Block II.2. The conditions of this agreement are set forth in detail in Exhibit 14. Under condition I (a) the plaintiff was to pay the sum of Rs. 5,325 in the following four instalments:-Rs. 1,332 on August 30, 1918.' 1,331 on December 1, 1918.' 1,331 on January 1, 1919.' 1,331 on February 1, 1919.3. He was at liberty under this contract to cut certain trees and remove them, subject to the conditions as to passes being given by the Forest Department, except certain trees, which are de...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaji Babaji Haval Vs. Sangappa Murigappa Wangi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom181; (1925)27BOMLR42
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The facts which have given rise to this Krishnaji appeal are briefly these. On October 20, 1918, the present defendants Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to sell the house in question to the present plaintiff for Rs. 850. On October 25, 1918, they in fact sold it to the present defendant No 1 for Rs. 900. The plaintiff filed Suit No. 358 of 1918 against the present defendant No. 1 and present defendants Nos. 3 and 4 for specific performance and damages arising out of the breach of the said contract dated October 20, 1918. It appears that the plaintiff made a claim for possession of the property also. The judgment in that suit shows that the principal point raised was whether defendant No 1 had notice of the contract between the plaintiff and the owners of the house. It was found that defendant No. 1 bought from the owners with notice of the previous contract with the plaintiff and in the result the following decree was passed :-' On payment of Rs. 825 by plaintiff,...
Tag this Judgment!Bala Ramchandra Gandbavie Vs. Daulu Rama Kiratsing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom176; (1925)27BOMLR38
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. These are two appeals arising out of two suits filed by the plaintiff in respect of certain laud and a house. As regards Appeal No. 196 of 1923 which relates to the house both Courts have found that the plaintiff's title is not proved and that his possession within twelve years prior to the date of the suit is not proved. It is clear, therefore, that that appeal must fail. We confirm the decree of the lower appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.2. As regards the land the facts are these. Vithu made a gift of the land in 1910 by a registered document, and Vithu's daughter Radha was in possession of this property when, in January 1914, the present plaintiff filed a suit against Vithu for possession of this very land. Vithu died during the pendency of the suit, and Radha was brought on the record as the legal representative of Vithu. But before she was, brought on the record, she sold the land to defendant No. 1. In that suit Bai Radha did no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »