Mumbai Court July 1925 Judgments
Gangaram Hari Teli Vs. Ganesh Pandurang Ghanekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom49; (1925)27BOMLR1339
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the plaint lands and to recover costs and rents for three years before suit 1917-18 to 1919-20. They claimed that the defendants were annual tenants, the tenancy being duly terminated on March 31, 1920, by a notice sent on December 24, 1919. The rent claimed amounted to half the profits for rice lands, for grass lands, and for fruit bearing trees, and one-third profits for work is lands, this being alleged to be the practice for Dharekari villages like the plaint one. The case comes from Ratnagiri, but plaintiff is not a Khot but an ordinary landlord.2. The trial Court held that the defendants were perpetual tenants, and that plaintiffs were entitled to enhance to a reasonable extent, and that reasonable enhancement was four times the assessment for two years in suit, and for the others in which there was famine, only twice the assessment was decreed.3. But in addition to the decree for enhancement at four times t...
Tag this Judgment!Giriappa Subanna Vs. Govindrao Ganrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom52; (1925)27BOMLR1336
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover from the defendant possession of the plaint land together with Rs. 19-10-0 as arrears of rent. The defendant pleaded that he was a permanent tenant, and not a yearly tenant, and that the plaintiff had no right to enhance the rent. The trial Judge found that the defendant was a permanent tenant. He was entitled to the presumption under the 2nd paragraph of Section 83 of the Land Revenue Code.2. Then the question arose as to the landlord's right to enhance.3. The Subordinate Judge relying on a passage of Dandekar's 'Law of Land Tenures,' held that he was entitled to fix a reasonable enhancement, which he declared to be Rs. 100 a year.4. On appeal the Assistant Judge remanded the case to the lower Court for findings on two issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff proved that there existed no usage or custom in the locality in respect of the enhancement of the rent of the land of the like description and tenure as the land in suit. (2) If ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Manant K. Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom110; (1925)27BOMLR1343
Coyajee, J.1. The accused, who, at the material time, was the Manager of the Surat Branch of the Industrial and Exchange Bank of India, was tried in the Court of the First Class Magistrate at Surat on a chargo which alleged as follows :-That you, on or about the period December 1, 1921, to October 31, 1922, being the Manage: of the Surat Branch of the Industrial and Exchange Bank of India, wilfully and with intent to defraud the Bank, altered the entries in certain books of accounts of the Bank and omitted to have certain entries made, and misappropriated the amounts as shown below, viz :-On December 1, 1921 ... Rs. 2149 9 3On March 11, 1924, ... Rs. 1500 0 0On October 31, 1922, ... Rs. 2400 0 0and thus committed criminal breach of trust in respect to the said amounts another by committed offences punishable under Sections 408 and 477 A of the Indian Penal Code, and within my cognizance.2. The Magistrate convicted him under as. 408 and 477A in respect of the first two items in the char...
Tag this Judgment!Mata Parsad Vs. Nageshar Sahai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1110
Ameer Ali, J.1. This litigation relates to two properties named respectively Baragawn and Wali, one situated in the district of Hardoi and the other in Kheri, in the province of Oudh. Both belonged to one Raja Fateh Chand who died in 1873. After the annexation of Oudh they were re-granted to Fateh Chand and his name was included with regard to the Hardoi property under List II and in respect of the Kheri property under List v. prepared under Act I of 1869 (the Oudh Estates Act). To these Lists reference will be made more particularly later on in this judgment.2. The following genealogical table will explain the position of the parties in this case :- Ram Sewak Ram | |----------------|-----------------| Ram Dhah Lal Pram Dhan Lal Nar in Dhan Lal | | | Gulab Rai |-----------------| Rajah Fateh Chand | Majlis Rai Dhanpat Rai (died October) Naubat Rai | | 4,1873) | | Raja Durga Prasad | Kanhaiya Lal |------------|----------| | | Malik Tikait Chandika | | Chand Rai Prasad | | | |----------...
Tag this Judgment!Giriappa BIn Sabanna Bisaldinni Vs. Govindrao Ganrao Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1925
Reported in: (1925)ILR49Bom902
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover from the defendant possession of the plaint land together with Rs. 19-10-0 as arrears of rent. The defendant pleaded that he was a permanent tenant, and not a yearly tenant, and that the plaintiff had no right to enhance the rent. The trial Judge found that the defendant was a permanent tenant. He was entitled to the presumption under the 2nd paragraph of Section 83 of the Land Revenue Code.2. Then the question arose as to the landlord's right to enhance. The Subordinate Judge relying on a passage of Dandekar's 'Law of Land Tenures', held that he was entitled to fix a reasonable enhancement, which he declared to be Rs. 100 a year.3. On appeal the Assistant Judge remanded the case to the lower Court for findings on two issues: (1) whether the plaintiff proved that there existed no usage or custom in the locality in respect of the enhancement of the rent of the land of the like description and tenure as the land in suit. (2) If no...
Tag this Judgment!Sevadasji Chandradasji Vs. the Municipal Corporation for the City of B ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom42; (1925)27BOMLR1216; 94Ind.Cas.654
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think that this is an exceptional case such as is contemplated in the judgment in Ahmed bin Shaik Essa Kaliffa v. Shaik Essa bin Kaliffam.2. There will be an order on the motion that the appellant should deposit within one month security to the extent of Rs. 5,000, in addition to the security already deposited for the respondent's coats. Costs will be costs in the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand Ramsukh Vs. Ramsukh Rampratap
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom39; (1925)27BOMLR1279
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. There were three suits pending in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Jalgaon On March 7, 1923, a consent decree was passed in terms of a certain compromise signed by all the parties including the present appellant except a formal party against whom no relief was claimed. The Judge said :-These three suits have been amicably settled by throwing the whole responsibility for the amount payable to plaintiff' on defendant No. J. So the minor defendant's share or interests in no way are prejudiced The plaintiff has been given in addition some property, but even then it would be within the limits of defendant No. 1's share.2. The plaintiff has now filed an appeal against this consent decree and in the grounds of appeal it is stated as follows :-(1) The order recording the compromise in the aforesaid suits is illegal and improper. (2) It is not proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the three suits were adjusted wholly or in part by a lawful agr...
Tag this Judgment!Daso Keshav Panohbhavi Vs. Karbasappa Kariyappa Mudhol
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom121; (1925)27BOMLR1446; 94Ind.Cas.591
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. [His lordship after setting out the facts, proceeded :] The first point taken in the appeal is that the appeal is not competent. Under Order XLIII, Rule 1, Clause (w), an appeal lies against an order passed under Order XLVII, Rule 4, granting an application for review. It was argued, however, that the grounds of appeal are limited by the terms of Order XLVII, Rule 7. That rule 7 was Section 629 in the Code of 1882. Under that Code there was no right of appeal against an order granting a review, only as provided for by Section 629-such an order might be objected to on the grounds stated therein. When by the Code of 1908 a right of appeal against an order granting a review was given, it would appear that the provisions of Section 629, which became Order XLVII, Rule 7, were not sufficiently reconsidered. Once the right of appeal was given that right could only be restricted by direct prohibition. If Order XLVII, Rule 7, had directed that an appeal against an or...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Ramvallabh Vs. Gomtibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom82; (1925)27BOMLR1310
Crump, J.1. The plaintiffs have tiled this suit as the owners of a vessel called the Fatehkhair to recover from the defendants as underwriters the sum alleged to be duo on a policy of marine insurance effected on the above vessel. Defendants Nos. 1 and 4, who appear and contest the suit, have raised a variety of defences which will be found embodied in the thirteen issues that have been raised in the suit. In most of those defences there is little or no substance and I do not find it necessary to discuss them at any length,2. The plaintiffs' case is that the policy was a time policy for two hundred and eighty days and that the ship sailed from Jamnagar in September 1919 with a cargo of rice and proceeded to various ports, finally arriving at Busrah about the beginning of the mouth of January 1920. The details of the voyage as far as Busrah are not necessary for the purposes of the present suit. After the voayel left Busrah, it is said, the proceeded to Fao, and after leaving Fao she en...
Tag this Judgment!Rupchand Balmukund Aharwala Vs. Jankibai Kanhyalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom24; (1925)27BOMLR1441
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. The plaintiff sued to have it declared that he had got one-fifth share in the properties left by one Balmukund, and that he was not liable for more than one-fifth, of the debts due, Further he sued for an equitable partition of the properties and for separation of his one-fifth share therein, and for mesne profits before suit and future profits.2. Balmukund died in 1904 leaving two widows. The plaintiff was adopted by the senior widow, while the junior widow also adopted one Hanumandas. When the widows died the reversioners disputed the adoptions. Two separate suits were filed against the two adopted sons, asking for a declaration that the adoptions were invalid. Both the adoptions have been held to be invalid, and the reversioners have been declared to be the real owners of the property. The suits were not finally concluded until 1918.3. In April 1918 while the appeal was pending in the High Court, an application was made on behalf of the present plaintiff...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »