Mumbai Court July 1925 Judgments
Dodbasappa Dharmappa Vs. Pradhanappa Venkappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom33; (1925)27BOMLR1318
Madgavkar, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant Dodbasappa purchased the right title and interest of defendant No. 3 Shiddappa and defendant No. 4, Pundappa, in the land in suit in execution of a money decree against them in favour of Rangrao in Suit No. 62 of 1905. The sale was confirmed and the appellant got the sale certificate in 1907. The present suit is for possession Defendants-respondents Nos. 1 and 2 refuse to give him possession on the ground that they are in possession as mortgagees and that the mortgage has not expired. The suit is also resisted by defendants Nos. 3 and 4 on the ground that the appellant has been guilty of fraud in execution. Both the lower Courts have upheld the respondents' plea and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appeals.2. The precise issues found in both the lower Courts were that the execution had proceeded without notice to respondent No. 4 and that the appellant was guilty of this fraud as well as of misrepresentation to the Court at the time of sale that...
Tag this Judgment!Sorabji Rustomji Subedar Vs. R.H. Patuck
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom532; (1925)27BOMLR1092
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit in the Small Causes Court claiming to recover rent of premises let out to the defendant. They were originally let to the defendant in September 1917 for a period of two years at Rs. 55 a month. The defendant paid that rent up to October 1918, and thereafter was willing to pay Rs. 44 a month; which he alleged to be the standard rent. The plaintiff claimed that the basis for the standard rent was Rs. 55, that the premises were not let out at their full and proper value of Rs. 55 a month on January 1, 1916, but at a confessional rent of Rs. 40 to the plaintiff's sister's husband and; therefore, he was entitled to charge the defendant Rs. 60-8-0. The plaintiff also stated that he had spent Rs. 58,000 for extensions and improvements to the premises in 1919, and so he claimed standard rent at Rs. 110 from July 1920, on the basis of the said improvements and extensions. He further claimed that he had to pay Municipal taxes on a higher ...
Tag this Judgment!Dayaram Sorajmal Vs. Chandulal Dayabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1118
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff alleged that he was a holder in due course of a Shah Jog hundi for Rs. 900, dated February 10, 1922, drawn by one Jaggannath Gordhandas of Poona on Joraji Deoraj, the second defendant firm of Bombay, in favour of Venkatesh Eamchandra Shivnoor of Belgaum. The plaintiff transmitted the said hundi from Gulberga to his branch firm at Secunderabad. In the course of transmission to Secunderabad the said hundi was stolen by some person not known to the plaintiff'. It then came into the hands of the first defendant firm, who presented it for payment to the drawees, the second defendant firm The first defendant received payment from the second defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the first defendant had no title to the hundi, and that the first defendant was bound to pay the same with interest as moneys had and received for and on behalf of the plaintiff The plaintiff further submitted that the second defendant firm was not entitled to pay the amount t...
Tag this Judgment!Dayaram Surajmal Vs. Chandulal Dayabhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom520; 90Ind.Cas.689
1. The plaintiff alleged that he was a holder in due course of a shah jog hundi for Rs. 900, dated February 10, 1922, drawn by one Jaggannath Gordhandas of Poona on Joraji Deoraj, the second defendant Firm of Bombay, in favour of Venkatesh Ramchandra Shivnoor of Belgaum. The plaintiff transmitted the said hundi from Gulberga to his branch firm at Secunderabad. In the course of transmission to Secunderabad the said hundi was stolen by some person not known to the plaintiff. It then came into the hands of the first defendant firm, who presented it for payment to the drawees, the second defendant firm. The first defendant received payment from the second defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the first defendant had no title to the hundi, and that the first defendant was bound to pay the same with interest as moneys had and received for and on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff further submitted that the second defendant firm was not entitled to pay the amount to the first defendant fi...
Tag this Judgment!Musst. Farid-un-nisa Vs. Munshi Mukhtar Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR193
Sumner, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant having sued to recover possession of a residence and agricultural land at or near Ahmadpur, the Subordinate Judge of Bara Banki passed a decree in her favour against two of the defendants, who are now respondents to this appeal. In the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh this decree was set aside and the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff had executed a wakfnama, covering the property and appointing the respondents mutawalli of the wakf, and accordingly the claim is in substance to set the deed aside.2. At the time of the execution the plaintiff was a married woman, illiterate, childless and purdanashin. She and her husband, Sheikh Karim-ud-din. were Mohammedans. Most of the property in question had been given to her upon her marriage by her maternal grandfather, but the residence, known as the mahal, and some sir land, both in the village of Ahmedpur, came to her by inheritance. Since her marriage she had lived there continuously, and, althou...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Basappa Rachappa Belkeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom536; (1925)27BOMLR1058
Fawcett, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate of Bijapur asking us to cancel an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. S.D. under Section 147, Criminal Procedure Code. The order in question arose out of a dispute as to the right of the Kurvinshetti Jadar residents of the village of Girsagar to take a car in procession along a public road to a temple. The Banajiger residents contend that it should not be allowed to go past their houses. An application was made by the first named party to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to order the other side not to interfere with the exercise of their alleged right, The Sub-Divisional Magistrate thereupon issued a preliminary order under Section 147, Sub-section (1), of the Code, and after hearing both the parties and the evidence led by them, he passed an order on February 26, 1925, prohibiting the Kurvinshetti Jadara from exercising their alleged right on the ground that they had not exercised it in the preceding year. The period...
Tag this Judgment!B.S. Jorapur Vs. Venkatesh Balvant Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom472; (1925)27BOMLR1116; 90Ind.Cas.656
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The remuneration of receivers, other than official receivers, under the Provincial Insolvency Act must be fixed under rule 16 of Chapter XXIII of the Manual of Circulars issued by the High Court, which directs that the remuneration of receivers, other than official receivers, shall be in such proportion to the amounts of the dividends distributed as the Court may direct provide that it does not exceed five per centum of the amount of dividends.2. In this case the Subordinate Judge awarded the receivers remuneration at the rate of five per cent on the whole amount realised by them. The greater portion of that amount was payable to a mortgagee. Therefore the balance available for paying dividends to creditors was under Rs. 25,000. It is clear, therefore, that the order of the Subordinate Judge directing payment to the receivers at the rate of five per cent, on the whole amount realised was not authorized by the rule and the District Judge was right in holding ...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Gopaldas Shet Vs. Krishnabai Gopalrao Garud
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom513; (1925)27BOMLR1156; 90Ind.Cas.604
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was filed by the adopted son of the late Mr. Gopal Balvant Garud to recover certain fees due to his father, who carried on the profession of a pleader. The original plaintiff having died, the suit was continued by his mother. In the present application we are only concerned with an item of Rs. 109 debited in Mr. Garud'a account on June 16, 1920, for his fees in Appeal No. 103 of 1920. The defendant admitted that he had engaged Mr. Garud in that appeal to appear, for him, and that he had put in his Vakilpatra in that appeal, but defendant denies his liability to pay Rs. 109 as Mr. Garud died before conducting the appeal The Judge said:_ This contention is obviously not tenable. Having made his appearance for the defendant in the appeal, Mr. Garud was entitled to get his legal fees It was no fault of his that ho died before the appeal was heard, and the defendant cannot escape from that liability simply because he had to incur further expanse by enga...
Tag this Judgment!Rachappa Chanbasappa Karvirshetti Vs. Ningappa Kasappa Lakhannavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom40; (1925)27BOMLR1253
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the plaintiff's father mortgaged certain land to defendant No. 1'a grand-father in the year 1871 with possession. Two years after that the plaintiff's father again mortgaged the same property for an additional sum of Rs. 100 to the same mortgagee. This document contains a term that the property should be enjoyed by the mortgagee for a period of twenty-one years in full satisfaction of the debt and after the completion of the said period, possession of the property should be restored to the mortgagor free of the mortgage charge. The plaintiff's father died in 1877. Under the term that I have just mentioned the property should have been given back to the mortgagor about 1894. But that was not done. In 1909 the plaintiff brought a suit against the mortgagee's representatives to redeem and recover possession of the land, alleging that it had been agreed the defendants should retain possession of the land for four years more after the term of twenty-one years had ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Basappa Rachapa Hundekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom526; (1925)27BOMLR1056; 90Ind.Cas.320
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the District Magistrate has moved this Court to enhance the sentence of fine passed on four accused persons who were motor-drivers and were convicted of the offence of dangerous driving under Section 5 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act VIII of 1914. Each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 25. This Court, however, has only issued notice-for enhancement of sentence in the case of accused No. 1 Basappa Rachappa,2. The main facts are these:-Basappa was driving a motor car which takes passengers between Bagalkot and Hongal and the other accused were driving similar motor vehicles. The Magistrate held that they were in fact racing, while they were driving along the road; and the car driven by accused No. 1 Basappa knocked down a man who sustained injuries to his legs and had to be treated in hospital for some time in consequence. There seems no doubt upon the evidence that the convictions of the four accused or at any rate that of accused No. 1, with whom al...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »