Mumbai Court November 1925 Judgments
Vithabai Janu Kharat Vs. Pandu Janu Kharat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR595
Norman Macleod Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the property in suit belonged to him and defendant jointly, and to have possession of a half of it by partition. The plaintiff was the son of one Janu by a concubine Ganga. Ganga admittedly lived with Janu as his mistress ever since she was fifteen years of age until his death, and had three children by him. But, unfortunately for the plaintiff. Ganga had a husband Mahadu. The defendant complained that the connection between Janu and Ganga was adulterous, and unless it can be proved that Mahadu had divorced Ganga, the plaintiff cannot succeed, The trial Judge was of opinion that the consent on the part of a husband to his wife living with another man would be sufficient to remove the bar of adultery, He says :-Mahadu did not dispute the connection between Ganga and Janu, though they all lived in the same village, and Ganga was living with Janu for about twenty years since about five years before plaintiff's birth. Suc...
Tag this Judgment!Amratlal Gordhandas Vs. Keshavlal Kuberdas Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR939
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of Ahmedabad confirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Dholka dismissing the suit. The ground on which both the lower Courts decided this case against the plaintiff was, that the bargain sued on was an unconscionable one and obtained by undue influence and that the plaintiff had taken advantage of the borrowers' necessitous condition, and that accordingly it could not stand.2. The document sued on, Exh, 15, was executed on January 8, 1917. Shortly stated, it gave the right to the plaintiff to obtain a commission of two and a half per cent, on the gross-income of a certain ginning factory in perpetuity. There were also provisions binding the three borrowers not to remove the factory, but to get any future partners to enter into a similar agreement and that, in certain events, the properties of the factory would be liable for certain moneys, and that, in certain other contingencies, the leader would be at li...
Tag this Judgment!Amratlal Gordhandas Vs. Keshavlal Kuberdas Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom495
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of Ahmedabad confirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Dholka dismissing the suit. The ground on which both the lower Courts decided this case against the plaintiff was, that the bargain sued on was an unconscionable one and obtained by undue influence and that the plaintiff had taken advantage of the borrowers' necessitous condition, and that accordingly it could not stand.2. The document sued on, Ex. 15, was executed on January 8, 1917. Shortly stated, it gave the right to the plaintiff to obtain a commission of two and a half per cent on the gross income of a certain ginning factory in perpetuity. There were also provisions, binding the three borrowers not to remove the factory, but to get any future partners to enter into a similar agreement and that, in certain events, the properties of the factory would be liable for certain moneys, and that, in certain other contingencies, the lender would be at lib...
Tag this Judgment!indaji Majaji Vs. Cooverji Nowroji Gamadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR237
Mirza, J.1. This is a notice under the provisions of the Bombay High Court Rules 300 to 802, The plaintiffs obtained a decree against the defendant in this suit on August 10, 1925, for Rs. 3289-7-0 for debt and interest and the costs of the suit. By a warrant of attachment they attached certain motor cars and furniture belonging to the defendant under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 43, of the Code of Civil Procedure. On August 21, 1925, the Sheriff certified that he had received from the defendant Rs. 3451-11-1 being the amount paid under the warrant of attachment of his moveable property under Order XXI, Rule 43, and that he held the said sum subject to poundage and other incidental charges. On September 24, 1925, the Prothonotary certified at the request of the plaintiffs' attorneys the names of three judgment creditors who had within twelve months prior to August 21, 1925, being the date of the realisation of the assets mentioned in the Sheriff's certificate, applied for executio...
Tag this Judgment!Ramling Parvatayya Samble Vs. Bhagvant Sambhuappa Kathale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR591
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The question in this appeal is what is the proper construction to be placed on Exhibit 17, which the plaintiff contended is an agreement to sell, and therefore is admissible in evidence without registration, in order to support his claim for specific performance of the agreement contained therein. The defendant contended that the document was compulsorily registrable under the Indian Registration Act 1908, and, therefore, was inadmissible in evidence.2. The trial Court held that the document did not require registration, and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The appellate Judge came to a contrary conclusion and dismissed the suit with costs in both Courts. The document is as follows:-My undivided one-third share in the property (shop premises) has been sold to you for Rs. 2,500 in cash the said amount having been received in sums by me from you from time to time. Only a registered sale-deed has remained to be executed and registered in your favour which I shall ...
Tag this Judgment!Ratanchand Khimchand Vs. Damji Dharsey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1925
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR371; 101Ind.Cas.766
Shah, J.1. This is an application for a review of the decree which was passed in Appeal No. 22 of 1921 by Mr. Justice Kemp and myself on July 20, 1923. The suit was filed on January 21, 1918, and the trial Court passed a decree on December 16, 1920. From that decree there was an appeal by the defendants and that is the appeal which we decided on July 20, 1923. Thereafter the defendants presented a petition for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council on January 17, 1924. On February 27, the appeal was declared admitted. Ultimately, however, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution on December 1, 1924, by the Court of Appeal here under Clause 12 of Rule 785 A of this Court which is in terms of the Order of His Majesty in Council regulating the practice in appeals to His Majesty in Council. The defendants applied for review of this order dismissing the appeal on December 18, 1924. That application was disallowed on January 26, 1925. The defendants made an application to His Maje...
Tag this Judgment!Sayed Mahomed Raja Sayed Sadak Miya Vs. Thakordas Chaturbhujdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR590
Norman Macleod Kt., C.J.1. In this case the defendants' property was sold in execution by the Collector acting in accordance with the rules in the third Schedule of the Civil Procedure Code. When the sale proceeds were received by the Court, a deduction of Rs. 180 was made for poundage according to the table of fees appearing at pages 204-205 of the Manual of Circulars issued by the High Court for the guidance of civil Courts. The fee for every sale of moveable or immoveable property is a percentage or poundage on the gross amount realized by the sale up to Rs. 1,000 at the rate of two per cent, together with a further fee on all excess of gross proceeds above Rs. 1,000 at the rate of one per cent; subject to certain provisions.2. The appellant claims that from the poundage can be deducted the expenses of the sale. As a result, in many cases, the poundage would disappear altogether. We have not been referred to any authority for such a proposition. Since the rules and the table of fees...
Tag this Judgment!Bharmakka Bistappa Vs. Mallappa Fakirappa Shiri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR598
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, as the widow of the brother of one Chanbasappa, who was a member of a Co-operative Society, brought this suit for a declaration that the award passed by the arbitrators, under the Co-operative Societies Act, was void and not binding on her, Chanbasappa died indebted to the Society described in the plaint, and the re-payment had been guaranteed by his two sureties. On a reference by the Registrar, the matter went before the arbitrators under Rules 28 and 29 framed under Section 43 of Act II of 1912, Proceedings were taken against the sons of the deceased debtor and , the two sureties, and also the present plaintiff, describing her as one of the legal representatives of the principal debtor.2. It is admitted that the plaintiff contended before the arbitrators that she was not the legal representative of the deceased debtor. In spite of that objection an award was passed against her. Any party, who is aggrieved by an award of an arbitrator, may a...
Tag this Judgment!Durgabai Vs. Sarasvatibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1925
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR414
Fawcett, J.1. This suit relates to a diamond, which is of some size and weight. The plaintiff Durgabai is the wife of Nandlal Haribux, a Marwari residing in Bombay. It is alleged that this diamond belonged to her, being presented to her by her father-in-law, or mother-in-law at the time of her marriage in 1905, and that accordingly it was her stridhan property. The plaint alleges that some time in August or September 1922 she handed a ring, in which this diamond was set, with some other ornaments to her husband, who in turn entrusted them to one Durgadutt Shrilal Gondka, a broker in jewellery and precious stones. There is some difference between the terms stated in paragraph 3 of the plaint as those on which this delivery to Durgadutt was made, and the evidence which plaintiff and her husband have given in Court. According to paragraph 3 of the plaint, these ornaments were given by the plaintiff to her husband with a view to selling the same on account and on behalf of the plaintiff, a...
Tag this Judgment!Sidheshvar Martand Hagre Vs. Ganpatrao Baburao Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR588
Norman Macleod Kt., C.J.1. This was a redemption suit filed by the plaintiffs, and after a somewhat varied career the suit was decided by the Subordinate Judge who directed the plaintiffs to recover possession of the property in suit, except Prat. No. 86, Survey No. 79, without paying anything to defendant No. 1. That one land referred to was omitted from the order because in execution of a money decree against the mortgagors, their equity of redemption in that property was sold.2. The appellate Judge allowed the plaintiffs to get possession of that Survey Number as well, following the decision in Martand Dhondo I.L.R.(1897) 22 Bom. 624 : S.C. 7 Bom. L.R. I.P.C.3. Defendant No. 1 has appealed, and the respondent's pleader rightly admitted that the decision in Khiarajmal v. Daim I.L.R. (1904) Cal. 296 governs the case, and the case of Martand v. Dhoudo cannot now be considered as an authority, as was pointed out in Govindmo v. Waman S.A. No. 474 of 1909 in this Court.4. The appellant, h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »