Mumbai Court November 1925 Judgments
Official Trustee of Bombay Vs. Salebhai Sarafally Bhagat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom328
Taraporewala, J.1. This suit was originally filed by one Vanmalidas Bhicabhai, as a trustee of certain premises situate at Sham Sett Street outside the fort of Bombay, against the first defendant, who is the owner of certain premises situate to the north of the said trust premises, claiming inter alia that the first defendant, his servants, agents and workmen might be restrained by an order and injunction of this Court from encroaching or trespassing on the trust premises as they had done on October 8, 9 and 10 1924, in the manner following, that is to say, that the defendant and his servants, agents and workmen had entered upon the ground floor of the trust premises and upon a chowk in the trust premises adjoining the southern wall of the defendant's premises for the purpose of plastering the said southern wall. The original second defendant was one of the trustees of the said premises with the plaintiff, and as he refused to join in the filing of the suit, he was made a party defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Khushalbhai Trikambhai Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR614; 95Ind.Cas.817
A riparian owner is entitled to the usufructuary use of the water in the river as it flows past his land. If Government introduce at a higher point more water into the river by artificial means they can divert the water for non-riparian purposes higher up the stream only to the extent of the water so introduced by them.Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed Suit No. 21 of 1913 in the District Court of Ahmedabad on behalf of themselves and the people of the village of Nawagam, Taluka Matar, District Kaira, against the Secretary of State for India This village is situated on the bank of the Khari river which rises near the village of Amnagar in the Idar State. By their plaint the plaintiffs claim that they, together with the inhabitants of the other villages, are entitled to the use of all the water necessary in the Khari river from its source up to their lands for the purpose of irrigation and for all their other necessities by virtue of an arrangement made between them and Go...
Tag this Judgment!Gurushantappa Sangappa Hoskeri Vs. Gurava Madivallappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR603; 95Ind.Cas.696
Narman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. It appears that, in a certain insolvency matter, a composition was effected between the insolvent and his creditors, which was embodied in an order passed by the Court, Exhibit 38, on June 12, 1920. The debtor agreed to pay a certain proportion of his debts by instalments amounting to Rs. 10,000 on due dates with interest agreeably to the terms mentioned in the proposal. One Gurushantappa Hoskeri, on April 15, 1920, agreed by Exhibit 61 to personally pay the said Rs. 10,000 with interest as per terms contained in the proposal, and by the terms of the bond he also mortgaged the property mentioned therein as security for his liability. The debtor defaulted and the creditor sought to execute against the surety's property, under Section 145 of the Civil Procedure Code, and, on June 24, 1924, an order was made that a warrant of attachment should issue against the immoveable property of the surety as described in the surety bond for the recovery of the amount due....
Tag this Judgment!Khushalbhai Trikambhai Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom358
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed Suit No. 21 of 1913 in the District Court of Ahmedabad on behalf of themselves and the people of the village of Nawagam, Taluka Matar, District Kaira, against the Secretary of State for India. This village is situated on the bank of the Khari river which rises near the village of Amnagar in the Idar State. By their plaint the plaintiffs claim that they, together with the inhabitants of the other villages, are entitled to the use of all the water necessary in the Khari river from its source up to their lands for the purpose of irrigation and for all their other necessities by virtue of an arrangement made between them and Government in 1843.2. Disputes had arisen with regard to the mode and the terms of enjoyment of the preferential rights to the water, which were referred to the arbitration of the Mamlatdar and certain other gentlemen' who prepared a statement or Kalambandhi of the rules regarding the mode and the terms for the enjoyment of the wate...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Ambalal Vs. Manilal Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR517; 94Ind.Cas.645
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question regarding the liability of persons who pass surety bonds on behalf of appellants who come to this Court asking for a rule for stay of proceedings on what are called the usual terms. On the application by the appellant that the sale of his house in execution of a decree against him might be stayed pending the disposal of an appeal in this Court, it was ordered that the attachment should continue and that on the applicant undertaking not to alienate the property in question and to furnish security to the First Class Subordinate Judge for interest on the decretal amount from the date of decree till end of June 1924, the sale should be stayed until the hearing of the said appeal by this Court, unless the opposite party showed cause why execution by sale of the attached house should not be stayed within one month from the service of notice. Thereafter the present appellant passed a bond whereby he bound himself and his h...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vasudev Vijapure Vs. Anant Laxman Thakar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR601; 95Ind.Cas.170
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they had a right of way over the plaint Bol (passage), and for an injunction directing the defendants not to obstruct the sweeper (Bhangi) of the plaintiffs coming through the Bol to cleanse the plaintiffs' privy, the plaintiffs alleging that the sweeper had been using this Bol for cleansing plaintiffs' privy for a period of more than twenty years so as to give the plaintiffs a right of easement for such user, and that the defendants had wrongfully obstructed the enjoyment of such right by putting up a door frame at the north end of the Bol blocking the passage some time about March 1921.2. The lower Court dismissed the suit, finding that, even from plaintiffs' evidence Exhibit 63, it was clear that, though not a regular passage, there was no other open space over which the sweeper could pass to the plaintiffs' privy for cleansing it; that there had clearly been obstruction in the alleged enjoyment by the plaintiffs...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Kamla Vs. Babubhai Shivshankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR607; 95Ind.Cas.834
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the properties, moveable and immoveable, mentioned in the plaint, with mesne profits, alleging that he was the son of one Shivshankar Bulakhiram, who died on November 18, 1921, and that the properties, which were claimed in the suit, were ancestral properties of himself and his father. Defendant No. 1 is another widow of Shivshankar, while defendant No. 2 is his step-sister. Defendants Nos. 3 to 8 were added as persons who were aiding defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in resisting the paintiff's claim to the possession of the suit properties. It was alleged that defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had poisoned the mind of the deceased against the plaintiff's mother, so as to bring about a disagreement between them, and that all the defendants, in collusion with each other, got up false evidence to prove that the plaintiff was illegitimate, and that his mother was of immoral character, and that the deceased had made a will An application...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Kamla and ors. Vs. Babubhai Shivshankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom348
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the properties, moveable and immovable, mentioned in the plaint, with mesne profits, alleging that he was the son of one Shivshankar Bulakhiram, who died on November 18, 1921, and that the properties, which were claimed in the suit, were ancestral properties of himself and his father. Defendant No. 1 is another widow of Shivshankar, while Defendant No. 2, is his step-sister. Defendants Nos. 3 to 8 were added as persons who were aiding Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in resisting the plaintiff's claim to the possession of the suit properties. It was alleged that Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had poisoned the mind of the deceased against the plaintiff's mother, so as to bring about a disagreement between them, and that all the defendants, in collusion with each other, got up false evidence to prove that the plaintiff was illegitimate, and that his mother was of immoral character, and that the deceased' had made a Will.2. An application had be...
Tag this Judgment!Girdhardas Coorji Vs. Kerawala Karsandas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR232
Fawcett, J.1. The question is whether the two certificate of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, dated January16, 1922, and June 15, 1923, which have been produced by the plaintiffs, should be admitted in evidence, They are not public records falling under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, nor are they documents of the nature mentioned in Section 82. There is no section in the Act that I am aware of which can be said to cover such certificates, except that the statements as to a national strike of coal-miners might possibly be a matter of public history, so that the Court could take judicial notice of them and resort for its aid to proper books of reference under Sections 57 and 87. Nor, so far as I am aware, are such certificates admissible in evidence in England under any statutory authority or otherwise. I am asked to admit them under Clause (2) of Section 32.2. I think there are two clear objections to treating them as admissible under that provision. The first is that these c...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Virchand Banker Vs. A.C. Bussel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR515; 95Ind.Cas.552
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover the amount decreed to him by a decree of the High Court of Judicature in England, dated December 30, 1918, for 154-12-2 and 5-8 0 for costs He claimed that the amount in sterling should be calculated in rupees at the rate of Rs. 15-8-0 per pound. The learned Judge raised an issue : 'At what rate should the sovereign be valued for the purposes of this suit,' and considered that in view of the clear provision of Section 11 of the Indian Coinage Act (XXXVI of 1920) the plaintiff could not be allowed to claim in rupees more than Rs. 10 per sovereign, The appellate Judge agreed with that finding, Section 11 of the Indian Coinage Act merely provides that in India the sovereign will be good tender for Rs. 10, that is to say, if A owes B Rs. 10 in Indian coinage, then if he tenders a sovereign, that will be recognised as good tender. But for the converse it is not correct to say that if A owes B one , in England he can discha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »