Mumbai Court January 1925 Judgments
Emperor Vs. David Sassoon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR359
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The complainant in this case was one Mrs. David Sassoon who presented an application under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code, for maintenance for herself and her four sons against the respondent David Saasoon, her husband and the father of the children. The defence to the application, as set out in the respondent's statement, was, that the complainant was misbehaving herself with a certain person, and had gone to Calcutta without his permission. With regard to the maintenance of the four sons, the respondent said that he was willing to have the children with him.2. On the facts the Magistrate came to the conclusion without any hesitation that the defence was not proved in any of its material particulars. Consequently the charge of misconduct was proved to he false. The Magistrate further considered that the complainant had satisfied him that the respondent having sufficient means was neglecting to maintain his wife and his four sons, who were unable to ma...
Tag this Judgment!Tukaram Dhondi Takamare Vs. Balabai Naigu Takamabe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom377; (1925)27BOMLR474; 87Ind.Cas.696
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for an injunction against defendants restraining them from obstructing the plaintiffs or their men in the enjoyment of the plaint land. It was alleged that the plaint land belonged to plaintiff No. 1, and was in her vahivat; that her husband held are enjoyed the land as remuneration for his services as Sauadi; that defendant No. 1 had no right to' it; that the services were recently stopped and the land shown in attached Sanadi land; that the Khata was changed to the name of plaintiff' No. 1; and that full assessment was collected from her.2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by their written statement contended that the plaint land was assigned for Sanadi services and was in the possession of defendant No. 1; that defendant No. 1 had worked therein; that the plaintiffs were not in possession of it; that the land was the ancestral land of the family; that Lingoo and his brothers, Sakharam and defendant No. 1 divided the land; that Lingoo was being ...
Tag this Judgment!David Sassoon Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom259; 87Ind.Cas.431
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The complainant in this case was one Mrs. David Bassoon who presented an application under Section 488, Cr. P.C., for maintenance for herself and her four sons against the respondent David Sassoon, her husband and the father of the children. The defence to the application, as set out in the respondent's statement,' was, that the complainant was misbehaving herself with a certain person, and had gone to Calcutta without his permission. With regard to the maintenance of the four sons, the respondent said that he was willing to. have the children with him.2. On the facts the Magistrate came to the conclusion without any hesitation that the defence was not proved in any of its material particulars. Consequently the charge of misconduct was proved to be false. The Magistral further considered that the complainant had satisfied him that the respondent having sufficient means was neglecting to maintain his wife and his four sons who were unable to maintain themselves. T...
Tag this Judgment!Saibai Govind Lavlekar Vs. Balkrishna Pandurang Bane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom368; (1925)27BOMLR471; 87Ind.Cas.702
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was tiled so far back as April 2, 1917. For one reason or another the hearing of the suit was not fixed until April 13, 1921. On April 2, 1921, the plaintiff applied that summonses should be issued to the persons mentioned in the list of witnesses filed in the Court. The learned Judge said :-The application is made at too late stage in this suit, It is not possible to get the summonses served in time as the date fixed is only April 13, 1921. No satisfactory reason is given for calling for the original record of Government. The application is rejected with costs on the plaintiff.2. Thereafter the suit was heard and dismissed with costs. The appeal met the same fate.3. Unfortunately the attention of neither of the learned Judges was called to the decision of this Court in Bai Kali v Alarakh Firbhai I.L.R. (1890)15 Bom. 86 where it was held that 'under Section 159 of the Civil , Procedure Code (XIV of 1882) a party to a suit was entitled, as of right,...
Tag this Judgment!Chandulal Suklal Shet Vs. Dagdu Mahadu Chaudhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom342; (1925)27BOMLR472; 87Ind.Cas.435
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 6369-13-6 with interest and costs being the balance alleged to be due on account of 861 mauuds and 29 1/2, seers of cotton jointly sold by all the plaintiffs to defendant No 1 on or about March 1, 1920, at Rs. 12 per maund. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs for Rs. 1609 with one third of their costs. It was proved in the trial Court that there was not one contract for the sale of 861 maunds of cotton by the plaintiffs to the defendant but that each plaintiff contracted to supply a certain number of maunds of cotton to the defendant, the total amount of the five contracts being 861 maunds It was quite impossible, therefore, for the plaintiffs to join in one suit five different causes of action on five different contracts made by five different plaint-tiffs. But they do not seek to do that. They seek to base their claim against the defendants on a single contract, though it is perfectly clear on the evidence tha...
Tag this Judgment!indurai Bhaurai Desai Vs. Shivlal Nabhubhal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom339; (1925)27BOMLR467
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This action wan instituted by the plaintiff to redeem and recover possession of property said to have been mortgaged by a mortgage deed of June 8, 1761, The lower Courts have held the mortgage proved, though there may be considerable doubts whether the original document, of which Exhibit 84 purported to be a copy, was really a mortgage within the terms of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, we may assume, for the purposes of this appeal, that the property was mortgaged in 1761.2. The next question is whether the suit is within time. The plaintiff relied upon an acknowledgment said to have been made by the descendants of the mortgagee in 1858. Assuming again that there was such an acknowledgment, which I am not prepared to accept without doubts, would that be an acknowledgment sufficient to save the time bar It is conceded that the Indian Limitation Act IX of 1871 applied to this mortgage, and consequently a suit to redeem would have to be br...
Tag this Judgment!indurai Bhaurai Desai Vs. Shivlal Nabhubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1925
Reported in: 87Ind.Cas.699
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This action was instituted by the plaintiff to redeem and recover possession of property said to have been mortgaged by a mortgage-deed of June 8, 1761. The lower Courts have held the mortgage proved, though there may be considerable doubts whether the original document, of which Ex. 84 purported to be a copy, was really a mortgage within the terms of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act. However, we may assume, for the purposes of this appeal, that the property was mortgaged in 1761.2. The next question is whether the suit is within time. The plaintiff relied upon an acknowledgment said to have been made by the descendants of the mortgagee in 1858. Assuming again that there was such an acknowledgment, which I am not prepared to accept without doubts, would that be an acknowledgment sufficient to save the time bar? It is conceded that the Indian Limitation Act IX of 1871 applied to this mortgage, and consequently a suit to redeem would have to be brought wi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikaji Laxman Bhikaji Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom365; (1925)27BOMLR463; 92Ind.Cas.110
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the order of commutation of Kulkarniki service in regard to five villages in the Khauapur Taluka of the Belgaum District was ultra vires of the Collector and was not binding on them.2. The defendant, the Secretary of State, claimed that the suit was barred under paras 2 and 3 of Section 4 (a) Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. that the order of commutation of the Kulkiirniki service was not ultra vire of the Collector; that Laxmibai. at whose instance the order was passed was in 1915 the representative of the persons beneficially interested in the watan and was the duly registered representative watandar, and so was a 'holder' as defined in clause 4 of Section 15 of Bombay Act III of 1874, and that the settlement made with her was therefore legal and binding on her successors, the plaintiffs, under clause 3 of that section.3. One Bhikaji Laxman was the sole representative Kulkarniki watandar of seventeen villages, inc...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabrao Yeshvant Harphale Vs. Magan Ghelabhai Gujarathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom326; (1925)27BOMLR461; 87Ind.Cas.769
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a decree was passed against the present appellants in 1899 in a suit for sale of certain mortgaged property. Redemption was allowed on payment of Rs. 2000 by annual instalments of Rs. 50 and it was directed that if there was a default in payment of two instalments, the plaintiff was entitled to take out execution for the whole amount. It is admitted that there was default in conforming to the terms of the decree so far back as 1901. The plaintiff had then the right to execute his decree for the whole amount, and necessarily time was running against the plaintiff from that date with regard to that right. It seems that thereafter various attempts were made by the plaintiff to recover the decretal amount by Darkhasts, and it is not suggested that the present Darkhast was filed more than three years after the date of the last Darkhast. Accordingly it was held by the Subordinate Judge and also by the District Judge in appeal that the Darkhast was in ...
Tag this Judgment!Champaklal Gopaldas Vs. Keshrichand Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR897
Mirza J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs claim the sum of Rs. 5,000 with interest at six per cent, from September 21, 1920. The claim is made on a hundi, dated September 15, 1920. The suit was originally filed as a summary suit along with another suit for a like amount by the plaintiffs against another defendant along with defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 obtained leave to defend the suit and was ordered to deposit the amount of the hundi in Court as a condition for the leave being granted. By their written statement the defendant firm have put forward a misleading plea, In paragraph 5 they say : 'These defendants ware always ready and willing to pay the amount of the hundi to the lawful holder in due course.' And in paragraph 6:'These defendants have always been and are still ready and willing to pay the amount of the said hundi to whosoever is the holder thereof in due course and they have deposited the amount of the hundi with the Protho notary of this Honourable Court.' That would le...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »