Mumbai Court January 1925 Judgments
imambhai KamrudIn Vs. Rahimbhai Usmanbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR503; 87Ind.Cas.977
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for an injunction against the defendants directing them to close up the windows which they had opened in the plaint joint wall, and for permission to the plaintiffs to do so at the defendants' costs if they failed to close up the windows, and to restrain the defendants from making any new openings etc., in the said common wall.2. The defendants contended that the wall in which the windows in the suit were opened had not been of joint ownership; that the plaintiffs were not prejudiced in any way; and lastly that the plaintiffs filed the suit about twelve years after the windows had been opened.3. The first issue in the trial Court was whether the wall between the two houses had been proved to be of joint ownership. The Judge found on the facts that the wall up to the roof of the plaintiffs house was old, and was of joint ownership, but that the plaintiffs had to admit that some years ago the wall had been raised by the defendants' ancestor...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Vithu Patil Vs. Ganoo Changoo Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom324; (1925)27BOMLR500; 87Ind.Cas.735
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit for accounts of a partnership entered into between the parties to the suit to ply a machawa for hire. The machawa itself has been sold, and the dispute now ranges about some minor matters in the account. The trial Court came to a decision on those matters. It is contained in what is called a preliminary decree at page 11 of the print. That was not a real preliminary decree, as all the questions in dispute were actually decided, and nothing remained to be done except to make the necessary calculations to give effect to the Court's findings.2. The defendant appealed and the Court came to a different conclusion on certain items of the account, and passed a decree accordingly.3. The plaintiffs have appealed, and the first ground on which they rely is that the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the preliminary decree in an appeal from the final decree. As a matter of fact the decree was not a preliminary decree although th...
Tag this Judgment!Tilakdhari Singh Vs. Kesho Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR819
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Patna which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Arrah. The question involved in the appeal relates to the extent or area of a mahal called Naubarar.2. The judgments below, in so far as they are judgments of fact, were concurrent judgments, and Mr. De Gruyther very properly, on behalf of the respondent, intimated that he would object to the competency of the appeal on that ground.3. Their lordships allowed the case to be opened, and it has been opened with great clearness and fulness by Sir George Lowndes. Ho has explained the point bearing upon what is the true nature of the deliverance pronounced by the High Court and the Court below, and he has maintained that, notwithstanding an apparent concurrence in findings of fact, there still remains as after explained a case which can legitimately be brought, as matter of law, under the well-known Indian practice, before their lordships,4. Their lordships, before enteri...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatadri Appa Rao Vs. Parthasarathi Appa Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR823
John Edge, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from three decrees, dated April 4, 1922, of the High Court at Madras, which had reversed three decrees, dated April 22,1921, of a Division Bench of that Court, by which three decrees, dated November 29, 1917, of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada dismissing original suits numbered 30, 87 and 88 of 1916, had been affirmed. The suits had been instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada on the following dates : No. 30 of 1916 on April 26, 1916; No. 87 of 1916, on December 26,1916; and No. 88 of 1916 on December 9, 1916. It was agreed at the hearing of these appeals that in drawing up the decree of the High Court in original suit No. 30 of 1916, Letters Patent Appeal No. 20 of 1921, that the words ' mesne profits ' in paragraph 3 of the decree should have been 'income' and their lordships amended that decree by substituting in it for the words 'mesne profits' the word ' income.' There was no question of mesne profits in the case....
Tag this Judgment!Dnyanu Yesu Jagdale Vs. Vishnu Parsharam Chitnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom372; (1925)27BOMLR495; 87Ind.Cas.721
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs father died leaving a widow and three minor sons, The plaintiff was the second son. His elder brother at the age of nineteen took charge of the family estate of the Hindu coparcenary On July 7, 1908, he passed a certain sale deed which the plaintiff seeks to avoid in the present suit, Subsequently the elder brother died and also the younger brother leaving the plaintiff and his mother the sole representatives of the family. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the property specified in the plaint and for a declaration that the transaction entered into by the deceased Ganesh Parashram was void And without consideration and illegal and that if it was held binding to the extent of the one-fourth share of Ganesh a declaration to that effect might be given to him. The suit was dismissed, on the plea of limitation, the lower Court holding that the suit had not been instituted within the time prescribed under Art, 44 of the Indian Limitation A...
Tag this Judgment!Sundrabai Vithal Deshpande Vs. Lakshman Ramchandra Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom325; (1925)27BOMLR497; 87Ind.Cas.723
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover mesne profits of certain watan land for three years 1918-1920, with interest from October 21, 1918, the date of the death of plaintiff's father who had mortgaged that watan property in 1908. The land was restored to the plaintiff by the revenue authorities in 1921 on the ground that plaintiff's father was not competent to alienate watan land beyond the term of his life. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the possession of the mortgagee, after the death of the original watandar-mortgagor, was not wrongful; and that although under Section 5 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, 1874, the mortgage itself did not subsist, the personal remedy did not cease.2. In appeal the plaintiff's claim was decreed for two years 1919-1920. The District Judge relied upon the decision in Krishnaji Sakharam v. Kashim I. L. R. (1919) 44 Bom. 500 22 Bom. L. R. 385 where it was held that the mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Ramsing Harising Vs. Bai Dhanba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom512; (1925)27BOMLR626
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff for possession of certain lands alleging that he was a permanent tenant thereof under the lease dated July 1, 1912, The document is a rent-note and by itself does not purport to transfer an interest in the land, so that the execution of the rent-note by the plaintiff to the owner of the land could not be said to constitute the transfer of any interest to him. Even if it had been accepted by the present defendant as alleged, as no possession had been given under it to the plaintiff, it would still remain a contract between the parties, so that the plaintiff would have for file a suit with three years from the time when the plaintiff had notice that performance was refused, for the performance of the contract, After the arguments were closed we were referred to the decision in Syed A jam Sahib v. Ananthanarayana Aiyar I.L.R.(1910) Mad. 95 in which it was held that the registered instrument which under Section 107 of the T...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chimanlal Pranjivandas Gheewalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR363
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner was charged under Section 294-A, Indian Penal Code, for publishing during the months of April and May last a circular of the so-called lottery of the Athlone Club Annual Sweep, popularly known as the Derby Sweep, to be drawn on June 4, 1924, for selling tickets thereof. The Magistrate convicted him and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 25, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for eight days.2. The petitioner applies to this Court in revision. The following are the terms of the circular issued by the petitioner.'Annual Sweep on the Derby in Aid of St Peter's Building Fundof the Athlone Club. June 4th 1924. Prizes, 1st Horse . 5,000 Rs. 75,0002nd Horse . 2,500 Rs. 37,5003rd Horse . 1,000 Rs. 15,000. Divided amongst Unplaced . 1,000 Rs. 15,000 Starters. 50 Special Prizes of . 25 Rs. 375 each. 160 Special Prizes of . 10 Rs. 150 each.The Sweep will close on the 23rd May 1924-, and the Draw under the supervision of the patrons stated in the ti...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Krishtappa Khandappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom327; (1925)27BOMLR599; 87Ind.Cas.838
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Six persons were charged before the Sessions Judge of Dharwar with having conspired and abetted each other in the felling and removal of twenty sandalwood trees from a Government reserved forest, and further with intending to commit forgery in respect of the trees by impressing thereon certain marks. Accused No. 4 was charged with possession of a counterfeit stamp for the purpose of impressing those marks, All the accused were acquitted. The Government have appealed with regard to the order of acquittal in favour of accused Nos. 1 to 4. We think that the record shows conclusively that accused Nos. 1 to 3 were concerned in the removal of sandalwood trees from Coupes Nos. 2 to 4 of Block No. 15 in the reserved forest of Shirgod, and removing them to the adjoining Malki No. 41. We do not understand on what material the Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence against those accused failed to prove their guilt. Admittedly accused Nos. 1 t...
Tag this Judgment!Limbaji Ravji Hajare Vs. Rahi Ravji Hajare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom499; (1925)27BOMLR621
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. the plaintiff filed this suit to recover possession of the plaint land which had belonged to his father, and had been mortgagee, by him to one Tatya Dada. On his father's death the plaintiff, then a minor, came under the protection of his step-mother. She redeemed the mortgage and sold the land to the father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 who in his turn sold it to defendant No. 4. Plaintiff claimed that his step-mother had no authority to dispose of his property.2. Defendant No. 4, who alone contested the suit, pleaded that the step-mother was the guardian of the plaintiff during his minority, that the lands were sold for legal necessity to pay off the mortgage and provide for the marriage expenses of the plaintiff, and consequently the sale was binding on the plaintiff. If it was held to be not binding, the defendant should be awarded Rs. 800 the consideration for the sale deed and Rs. 100 spent by him on improvements. The trial Judge held that the stepmother ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »