Mumbai Court June 1925 Judgments
Maung Bya Vs. Maung Kyi Neo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1427
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the Chief Court of Lower Burma (Maung Kin and Duckworth JJ.) dated May 31, 1921, allowing the appeal of the respondents against a decree of the District Court of Pyapon (Po Bye District Judge) dated September 27, 1919, by which the said District Judge ordered the respondents to pay the appellants the sum of Rs. 8,821-48 by way of damages and the costs of the suit.2. The appellants in the second paragraph of their case allege that ' the question raised is whether in Burma a lower agricultural owner is liable to compensate a higher agricultural owner for damage to crops by inundation caused by the blocking of a canal running through the lands of the lower owner by which the water would otherwise have been drained from the land of the higher owner.3. In a sense, but only in a limited sense, is that statement accurate. Save in the second and third of the reasons for their appeal it is put forward that the law applicable in Lower Burma to ...
Tag this Judgment!Asvath Narayan Astaputre Vs. Chimabai Gopalrao Sadekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom107; (1925)27BOMLR1246
Fawcett, J.1. The only point that arises in this second appeal is whether the lower appellate Court has erred in holding that the document Exhibit 50 was a sale, and not a mortgage, transaction. In taking this view it differed from the trial Court which held the document to be a mortgage that could be redeemed by the plaintiff, who brought thin suit for redemption within sixty years from the date of the document. The document has been translated in the judgment of the trial Court as follows:-We have borrowed from you the sum of Rs. 100 in words Rs. one hundred) for oar necessity. Be it so. The rate of interest agreed on this is half an anna per rupee per mensem Be it so. How the period to repay the same is fixed to be within two months from today, during which period we shall repay you the aforesaid principal and the interest also and we shall take back this deed. If for any reason we fail to pay the amount during the stipulated time, then in lieu of the aforesaid sum, the Government l...
Tag this Judgment!Homeshvar Singh Vs. Jugal Kishore Marvari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR187
Phillimore, J.1. This case turns upon the construction of a contract made between a landowner in the District of Bhagulpur, the deceased father of the appellants in the main appeal, and two persons interested in the purchase of timber whom it will be convenient to call the contractors.2. By this contract, made on May 23, 1915, the landowner sold to the contractors the right of cutting five lakhs of sleepers to be cut from Sakhua trees in the landowner's jungle. The sleepers were to be in defined quantities of six different dimensions-the longest twelve feet in length and the shortest three feet-with varying differences in breadth and thickness, and valued at separate prices.3. The whole were to be cut before June, 1919, so that there was a period of four years for performing the contract. But it was in contemplation, as the contract shows, that 15,000 sleepers would be cut each month during the nine dry months of the year and 1,35,000 at least a year, the contractors also undertaking t...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadeo Govind Wadkar Vs. Lakshminarayan Ramnath Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1150
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. The opponent having filed suit No. 139) of 1921 in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Mahad, the suit was dismissed for default under Order IX, Rule 8, Civil Procedure Code, on October 30, 1922. He was then entitled under rule 9 to apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he could satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court could make an order setting aside the dismissal. But under Article 163 of the Indian Limitation Act, the period of limitation for making such an application under rule 9 is thirty days. The opponent made his application on the 31st day, and was therefore clearly out of time. Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act has not been made applicable by any enactment or rule to an application under Order IX, Rule 9, and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to admit the app...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Keshav Vagle Vs. Kaji Gulam Mohidin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom115; (1925)27BOMLR1240
Fawcett, J.1. The plaintiff has sued the defendant to recover a certain sum of money as due on a simple mortgage bond, passed in 1910 by defendant No. 1 and his father, whose other legal representatives have been joined as defendants. Defendant No. 1 opposed the suit contending that he was an agriculturist, that he and his father had no dealings prior to this bond with the plaintiff, and that the latter was a benamidar for one Shamdin Jagannath Marwadi, who had got the bond executed in favour of the plaintiff with the object of avoiding his liability to account under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act in regard to the previous transactions between him and the defendant. He also pleaded that the Marwadi's dues were mostly paid off, and that no fresh consideration who paid when the bond in suit was passed. The trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence, held that the defendant was an agriculturist within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and that, the plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpati Kondaji Sandbhar Vs. Maruti Gangaji Sandbhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom522
Macleod, C.J.1. The applicant is the lessee of certain property which was leased to him for ten years on July 30, 1921, by the owner, Kashibai, one of the terms of the lease being that the tenancy was to be forfeited if the tenant failed to pay the rent provided for in the lease. The opponent purchased the land in dispute from Kashibai on June 30, 1924, and got the lease in suit transferred to himself on August 20, 1923. As the applicant had not paid rent, the opponent filed a suit on June 19, 1924, in the Mamlatdars' Court to recover possession. The Mamlatdar decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed that the plaintiff should be put in possession of the land. An application to the Collector to revise this order was rejected without hearing the applicant. He has now come to this Court asking us to interfere on the ground that the Collector ought not to have rejected the application without hearing the applicant or his pleader. We are not concerned in this application wit...
Tag this Judgment!G.i.P. Railway Company Vs. Haji Tarmahomed Hasam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom534; (1925)27BOMLR1111; 90Ind.Cas.562
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 1,600 as the price of the contents of the plaint tins of oil, with interest The trial Court decreed the plaintiffs claim to the extent of Rs. 957. The appellate Judge increased the decretal amount to Rs. 1189-12'9. The railway company have appealed, it is curious to note that in so many of these risk-note cases, the parties fail entirely to realise what are the real issues in the case, and in second appeal they endeavor to remedy the defects which have occurred in the proceedings in the Courts below. The third issue in the trial Court was :'Is the risk note set up by the defendant railway company duly proved?' That was found in the affirmative. Then the second part of the issue was: ' If so, are the defendants absolved from any liability ' Under the terms of the risk-note the defendants would only be liable, in any event, for the loss of a complete package or of a consignment consisting of a complete package or packages, and...
Tag this Judgment!Vagha Jesang Vs. Jagjivan Amritlal Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom542; (1925)27BOMLR1107; 90Ind.Cas.558
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. These are applications entertained under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act in suits filed by the Desais of the village of Vinzol. The -Plaintiffs were not entitled to claim the whole of the rent, They are sharers to the extent of fourteen annas and seven and a half pies. The sharer entitled to the balance is not a party to the proceedings. The plaintiffs are claiming their share of what is payable by the tenants, at a higher amount than has been paid in the previous years, on the ground that although the bigha in those cases may be the same, the tenants are liable to pay additional rent for certain excess land in their occupation. It would not, therefore, be, strictly speaking, a suit for enhanced rent, but merely a claim that the tenants should pay the proper rent for the lands they are cultivating, the rate itself being admitted, But since these tenants have been paying certain rents in past years for the land in their occupation, it is n...
Tag this Judgment!Pandu Joti Kadam Vs. Savla Piraji Kate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom172; (1925)27BOMLR1109
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think that the decision of the Subordinate Judge was right, and that the authority relied upon by the Assistant Judge has no application. The applicant at the time he presented the darkhast had no title to the decree which he sought to execute. He had only a right under his own decree to obtain an assignment from the decree-holder of the other decree. The applicant was given time by the Sub ordinate Judge to cite any authority to support his proposition. He failed to do so. There in no authority that we know of which lays down that a darkhastdar, who has no title whatever to execute the decree at the time of the darkhast, can remedy the defect by completing the title after the date of the darkhust, and then try to execute the decree by virtue of that title.2. We allow the appeal and restore the decree of the Subordinate Judge with costs throughout....
Tag this Judgment!N.H. Moos Vs. Abdul HusaIn Mulla Tyeballi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom523; (1925)27BOMLR1147; 90Ind.Cas.600
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision by Mr Moos, who was appointed Receiver by an order of the High Court for administering the estate of one Kadarbhai Issuji now deceased. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Small Causes Court, Bombay, against the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased owner of the estate. He added the Receiver as a party to the suit and obtained ex parte leave from the High Court to sue the Receiver. It should have been obvious that no relief could have been granted against the Receiver in a suit filed in the Small Causes Court. When the suit came up for hearing the Judge passed a decree against defendants Nos. 2 to 8, who were the heirs of the deceased, and dismissed the suit against the Receiver. The plaintiff then appealed to the Full Court, praying that the dismissal of the suit as against the petitioner might be set aside, and a decree for the amount claimed passed against him, The Full Court delivered judgment setting aside the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »