Mumbai Court February 1925 Judgments
Jamshedji Naoroji Gamadia Vs. Maganlal Bankeylal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR514; 92Ind.Cas.9
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit seeking to recover the sum of Rs. 26,671-9-0 from the first defendant, and praying for a declaration that the pledge of the shares mentioned in Ex. E to tie plaint was binding on the second defendant, and that the second defendant had no right to prohibit the transfer of the said Chares to the name of the plaintiffs. They also prayed that they might be authorised to sell the shares mentioned in Exh. D and appropriate the net proceeds towards part satisfaction of the decree to be passed in their favour.2. Plaintiffs alleged that the first defendant had borrowed certain amounts from them on security of certain shares. On April 12, 1921, it was found that Rs. 38,000 were due by the first defendant and the first defendant passed a writing to the plaintiffs whereby he promised to pay the plaintiffs the said sum of Re. 38,000 on demand with interest, and gave details of the shares which were to remain as security. Thereafter the plai...
Tag this Judgment!Kisan Tukaram Takle Vs. Bapu Tukaram Ghadling
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom424; (1925)27BOMLR670
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think this case is governed by the decision in Vithappu v. Savitri I.L.R(1910) . 34 Bom. 510 : 12 Bom. L.R. 487 Daughters under the Hindu law inheriting from their father take an absolute interest, and if there is no division, they take as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. There was, therefore, no question in this case of taking by survivorship. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Mulchand Manaji Marwadi Vs. Jamanbi Abudulkadirsaheb Kaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom443; (1925)27BOMLR671
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Two questions arise in this second appeal, (1) whether an application to the Court to pay out money in satisfaction of a decree can be a step-in-aid of execution; (2) whether on the facts of this case the Court can presume that all oral application was made by the judgment-creditors on April 13, 1918, for payment out to them of the sale proceeds of the property deposited in Court. It was decided in Sapuchand v. Mugutrao I.L.R (1896) . 22 Bom. 340 that an application by a judgment-creditor for the payment to him of money, which has been paid into Court on his account in execution of his decree, is an application to the Court to take a step-in-aid in execution of the decree within the meaning of Article 179 of Schedule II of the Indian Limitation Act, We see no difference between money paid into Court to satisfy a decree and money lying in Court as a result of a sale in execution of the decree. We think, therefore, that if an application for payment out was ma...
Tag this Judgment!Pranlal Tribhuwandas Vs. Goculdas Damodar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom333; (1925)27BOMLR570
Pratt, J.1. In this suit plaintiff sues as mortgagee of certain property in Dutch belonging to the first defendant. The mortgage was made in Bombay on November 20, 1923, by deposit of title deeds.2. He has joined in that suit the second defendant on the ground that the second defendant falsely alleges that he is now in possession as prior mortgagee of the properties and denies the plaintiffs right to a charge on the said properties. Plaintiff accordingly prays not only for a decree for the sale of the properties but also for a declaration of his charge as against the second defendant.3. The suit as between the plaintiff and the first defendant was decided by a consent decree taken on August 19. 1924, where-by a decree for sale was made on behalf of the plaintiff, with however this reservation as regards the second defendant, that that decree was to be without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff and the second defendant, and the suit was adjourned in order that the rights of the pl...
Tag this Judgment!Begu Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR707
Haldane, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore in a case which came before it on appeal from the Sessions Judge of Montgomery. By their judgment the High Court affirmed the sentence of death which had been pronounced by the Sessions Judge on two of the appellants and the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment pronounced on the three other appellants.2. Shortly stated the case made out by the prosecution was this: On the night of June 15, 1923, one Bakhsha, the murdered man, was riding home accompanied by a man called Turez, who was the chief witness for the prosecution The latter parted from him about 9 P. M. to go to a well in one of his fields, and Bakhsha continued On his way. Very shortly after they had parted Turez heard a cry from the direction in which Bakhsha had gone; he ran forward and saw Bakhsha being assaulted by the five accused, and another man, who has since absconded. It was said in the evidence that friction had ex...
Tag this Judgment!Kondi Savla Bachal Vs. Banachand Cheniram Marwari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom422; (1925)27BOMLR667
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff' sued to recover possession of the plaint property with mesne profits, alleging that on May 23, 1918, he purchased it tit a Court auction for Rs. 530 in darkhast No. 654 of 1917 in execution of the decree obtained by him in suit No. 887 of 1913.2. That suit was filed on a mortgage given by one Krishna Appa, against his widow Vithabai and one Patlu Babaji.3. The plaintiff obtained a sale certificate dated August 15,1918. The defendant claimed that he had obtained a decree in suit No. 649 of 1911 against Vithabai and in execution of the decree the property was sold at auction on February 1, 1913, and was, purchased by Patlu bin Babaji benaini for the defendant; that since then he had been in possession; that the plaintiff collusively obtained the decree against Patlu in 1913; and that he was not bound by it. The trial Court held that the defendant had not proved that Patlu Babaji was his benamidar, that the plaintiff had proved his title to the p...
Tag this Judgment!Shripad Dattatraya Kamat Vs. Vithal Vasudevshet Parker
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom399; (1925)27BOMLR674
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit to recover money on a mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property. The mortgage was admittedly passed to one Damaji Raghunath. After Damaji's death his widow Anandibai adopted Dattatraya. On Dattatraya's death his widow adopted the plaintiff, the brother of Dattatraya. The defendants disputed the fact of both adoptions, and also contended that Dattatraya being plaintiff's brother, plaintiff could not validly be adopted by Dattatraya's widow. The adoption was held proved but the plaintiffs suit was dismissed on the ground that the ' brother ' was expressly mentioned as a person who could not be adopted in the Dattaka Mimansa, section V, clauses 16 to 19. The appeal to the District Judge was summarily dismissed for the same reason. It is unfortunate that neither of the learned Judges in the Courts below considered the series of Bombay authorities on this question.2. In Mallappa Parappa v. Gangava I. L, R(1918) , 43 Bom. 209 21 Bom. L.R. 17 it wa...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Shridhar Pathak Vs. Narhar Pandurang Atre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom389; (1925)27BOMLR657
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think that the order of September 25, 1923, made by the Subordinate Judge was beyond his powers and that, therefore, it must be net aside. On January 16, 1922, an order was passed that execution should proceed against the judgment-debtor in the case for Rs. 180. On March 25, 1922, another order was passed on the judgment creditor's application that the amount prayed for, namely, Rs. 443, should be realised by sale of the mortgaged property. The sale was held in pursuance of the latter order and the purchaser was put into possession. Later it was represented to the Judge that when the order of March 25, 1922, was passed, the order of January 6, 1922, was lost sight of, so that there was an irregularity in the sale. The Judge thought that he had inherent powers under Section 152, Civil Procedure Code to set aside the order of March 25, 1922, and the sale held thereunder. So he ordered the amount paid by the auction-purchaser to be refunded and sent back the...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Krishna Kulkarni Vs. Shankar Mahadev Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom446; (1925)27BOMLR663
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain a permanent injunction ordering the defendants to see that the two palm trees and the jack-fruit tree growing in the defendants' land, or their leaves or any portion of them did not overhang either the plaintiff's house or land, and to obtain an order that these trees should he cut down by the defendants at their expense and that in default the plaintiff should be allowed to do so at the expense of the defendants, also for damages and costs.2. The defendants raised many contentions in their written statement. The principal issues raised on the pleadings were:-(1) Is the plaintiff entitled to have the defendants' palms and jacktree (Nos. 1 to 3 in the map-exhibit 18) removed ?(3) Is the plaintiff estopped from asking for the removal of the palms and jaoktree ?(4) Is the suit barred by limitation.(5) Have the defendants any and what rights of easement with regard to the palms?3. The trial Judge held that the plaintiff was entitled ...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak Narayan Pujari Vs. Damu Bhau Sali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom430; (1925)27BOMLR656; 95Ind.Cas.881
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff failed to prove his title. It has been argued that because he got his name entered in the City Survey as the owner of the land in dispute and obtained a sanad, the Court is bound to consider him aa the presumptive owner of the land, and that the defendant was bound to show some better title in order to defeat the plaintiff's claim But there is nothing in the Bombay Land Revenue Code which justifies us in saying that a person who gets a sanad at the City Survey on his ex parte application, is entitled to turn out the person in possession of the land, unless he shows that he has a better title. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »