Mumbai Court February 1925 Judgments
Suryajirao Ganpatrao Jahagirdar Vs. Sidhanath Dhonddeo Garud
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom435; (1925)27BOMLR645
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to obtain a declaration that the defendant was not entitled to claim more than Rs. 87-9-11 per year fixed by the original agreement, and to recover from the defendant Rs. 2,649-12-4 wrongfully recovered by the defendant with interest thereon and further interest till realisation, and for a permanent injunction to the defendant restraining him from demanding more than Rs. 87-9-11 per year.2. The plaintiffs' title depended upon two documents, Exhibits 74 and 75. Those documents, we think, gave the plaintiflV predecessors-in-title the right to hold the land mentioned therein as permanent tenants on payment of the rents fixed by those documents. In 1911 and 1912 the defendant's property was being managed by the Court of Wards, and a notice of demand was served upon, the plaintiffs by the Collector on behalf of the Court of Wards claiming a higher rent or assessment to be levied on the plaintiffs' land. An objection was raised in 1914 by the r...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bhau Vyankatesh Chakorkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom433; (1925)27BOMLR607
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The four petitioners apply to this Court for revision of an order passed on April 23, 1924, by the First Glass Magistrate of Pandharpur holding that it was competent to him, on the complaint of the opponent Shahabuddin Babaji, to take cognizance of some of the offences referred to in Section 195(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that a complaint in writing under Section 473 was unnecessary. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected this petitioners' application for revision on October 13,1924.2. The second petitioner owned a house at Pandharpur which was sold by a registered sale-deed on October 28, 1920, to one Ibrahim Babaji, younger brother of the complainant. On March 28, 1921, Ibrahim Babaji brought a suit (No. 295 of 1921) against the second petitioner in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Pandharpur, for possession of a portion of the house. The second petitioner put in a written statement, stating that the house was given by him to his wife C...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bhau Vyankatesh Chakorker
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR49Bom608
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The four petitioners apply to this Court for revision of an order passed on April 23, 1924, by the First Class Magistrate of Pandharpur holding that it was competent to him, on the complaint of the opponent, Shahabuddin Babaji, to take cognizance of some of the offences referred to in Section 195(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that a complaint in writing under Section 476 was unnecessary. The Additional Sessions Judge rejected the petitioners' application for revision on October 13, 1924.2. The second petitioner owned a house at Pandharpur which was sold by a registered sale-deed on October 28, 1920, to one Ibrahim Babaji, younger brother of the complainant. On March 28, 1921, Ibrahim Babaji .brought a suit (No. 295 of 1921) against the second petitioner in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Pandharpur, for possession of a portion of the house. The second petitioner put in a written statement, stating that the house was given by him to his wife...
Tag this Judgment!Hurdayal Shivlal and Vs. Haji Adam Gool Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR49Bom638
Taraporewala, J.1. The point for decision in this matter is whether moneys in the hands of the Official Assignee, which are payable to the judgment-debtors as creditors of the insolvent by way of dividend declared by the Official Assignee, are attachable under Order XXI, Rule 52, of the Civil Procedure Code.2. I have been told that there have been judgments of single Judges of this Court disallowing such attachment, following the English cases on the point. There is no judgment of a Judge of this Court with reasons given for the decision on the point which might be of some assistance to me in deciding this question. The judgments of single Judges, however, are not binding on me.3. Now there is no doubt that in England it has been held that the moneys in the hands of the Official Receiver payable by way of dividend to the judgment-debtor as creditor of the insolvent are not a debt liable to be attached within the meaning of Order XLV, Rule 1, of the Supreme Court Rules. The point was de...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmant Subbaya Naik Vs. Krishna Manjunath Yaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom402; (1925)27BOMLR642
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit property with past mesne profits. He had been adopted by one Venkamma on May 26 1915. On April 25, ] 903, Venkamma had given the suit property on Mulgeni to one Manjunath. On April 30, 1903, she adopted one Ram-krishna born on June 14, 1900. On December 17, 1914, Ram-krishna died a minor. The present suit was brought on February 7, 1922. The lower Court dismissed the suit as time-barred2. In first appeal it was contended that Venkamma could only adopt to her deceased husband, that the second adopted son was in no way the representative of the first adopted son and therefore the cause of action accrued on the date of his adoption. On the other hand the defendant argued that the second adopted son was the representative of the first adopted son and therefore the suit was time-barred. The District Judge held that by his adoption, plaintiff obtained the right to question his adoptive mother's alienations and t...
Tag this Judgment!Ganappa Putta Hegde Vs. Hammad Saiba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom440; (1925)27BOMLR637
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. There were five cousins, Bomrnanna, Tim-rnanna, Puttayya and Subbayya, sous of Bomma Hegde, and Glanapa Manj Hegde, living separate. Ganapa died leaving a widow Venkamma as heir to his property. Puttayya and Subbayya died during her life-time, so that on the death of Venkamma Bommanna and Timraanna succeeded to her property as reversioners, Puttayya's son representing that he was p entitled to half the property of Ganappa sold it to the plaintiff in this suit for Rs. 400 on April 4, 1915, Rs. 150 were paid in cash, and for the balance the plaintiff' passed a mortgage on certain of his properties. The plaintiff, when he was unable to get possession owing to the obstruction of Bommanna and Timmanna, purchased the land from them and obtained possession on April 4, 1&21. He sued Puttayya's son to recover the Rs. 150 and to obtain a declaration that the mortgage bond was satisfied, The defendant pleaded that he did not make any representation to the plaintiff, th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mallappa Basappa Kurnahallu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR488
Marten, J.1. This is an application in revision with reference to a complaint under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The First Class Magistrate has gone in great detail into the title of the property in dispute. Indeed the twenty-five typed pages of his judgment are mainly concerned with this question of title. In the result he held that the civil Court was the proper tribunal to decide the real dispute between the parties. He also found that the Hindu family in question was still joint, and that the lands and houses concerned in this proceeding were jointly in the possession and management of the applicant and opponents, and that consequently Sections 145 and 146 did not apply.2. The grievance now urged before us by the applicant is that the learned Magistrate should not have gone into the question of title, but should have concerned himself only with the question of possession, and that he has consequently approached the case from a wrong angle. To a considerable degree I ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapa Putta Hegde Vs. Hammad Saiba Vallad Abdul Saib
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR49Bom596
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. There were five cousins, Bommanna, Timmanna, Puttayya and Subbayya, sons of Bomma Hegde, and Ganapa Manj Hegde, living separate. Ganapa died leaving a widow, Venkamma, as heir to his property. Puttayya and Subbayya died during her life-time, so that on the death of Venkamma, Bommanna and Timmanna succeeded to her property as reversioners. Puttayya's son representing that he was entitled to half the property of Ganapa sold it to the plaintiff in this suit for Rs. 400 on April 4, 1915. Rs. 150 were paid in cash, and for the balance the plaintiff passed a mortgage on certain of his properties. The plaintiff, when he was unable to get possession owing to the obstruction of Bommanna and Timmanna, purchased the land from them and obtained possession. On April 4, 1921, he sued Puttayya's son to recover the Rs. 150 and to obtain a declaration that the mortgage bond was satisfied. The defendant pleaded that he did not make any representation to the plaintiff, that th...
Tag this Judgment!Kedarnath Goenka Vs. Anant Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR848
Shaw, J.1. The question raised on this appeal is one of procedure. The judgments of the Courts below are concurrent they are gathered together in the final paragraph of the judgment of the High Court, in which Mr. Justice Das says:-I hold that, under the Code of of 1882, a proceeding for the ascertainment of mesne profits was a proceeding in execution and that, as the decree, in the present case, was passed under the Code of 1882, such proceedings must be held in execution and not in the suit. That being so, Order 22, Rule 12, applies, and it must follow that substitution was not necessary.2. Their lordships have heard a persistent argument criticising the entire authorities cited in the case; they have considered that argument and the authorities; and they now declare that nothing has been urged which would induce them upon this point of procedure to express disagreement with the result arrived at in the Courts below.3. In their lordships' opinion, the appeal accordingly ought to be d...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagvanlal Chunilal Vs. Bal Divali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom445; (1925)27BOMLR633
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The original plaintiff to this suit was one Parshottam Hargovandas, who sued to recover from the defendants possession of the property in suit, alleging that his wife Bai Adat died on January 9, 1921, leaving behind her that property to which the plaintiff was the heir at law; that the defendants were withholding possession of the same from him on the strength of an alleged will by Bai Adat; and that as the plaintiff had not consented to it, it was not operative.2. The defendants want to trial on the issues whether the will by Bai Adat was valid, and whether the suit properties, or any of them, were other than Saudayika stridhan of the deceased , Bai Adat. The trial Judge found that the will was valid, and that the property in suit was riot Saudayika stridhan of Bai Adat Ho considered in the circumstances of the case that Bai Adat was entitled to dispose of such property by ill, although her husband was alive, because the will was not made during coverture, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »