Mumbai Court August 1925 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Vishveshvar Subrao Kulkarni Vs. Sadashiv Venkatramanayya Harite
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom54; (1925)27BOMLR1456
Fawcett, J.1. In the early part of 1900 a darkhast was filed against the plaintiff for recovery of certain amount under a mortgage decree He approached the defendant, who is his father's sister's son, for the necessary amount, and as a result it was arranged that the defendant should bid for the mortgaged property, which should be taken to include a certain house, provided that the amount he had to bid was not more than Rs. 1,200. The defendant actually did purchase that property at that sum; and it has been held proved by both the lower Courts that there was a simultaneous agreement under which the defendant was to re-convey the suit land to the plaintiff whenever he tendered the sum of Rs. 1,268. The plaintiff sued in 1921 for specific performance of this agreement. The Subordinate Judge granted him specific performance subject to his paying not only the sum of Rs. 1,268, but also Rs. 1,220 on account of improvements made to the property by the defendant. The District Judge in appeal...
Shivlingappa Nijappa Tubchi Vs. Gurlingava Basappa Tubchi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom103; (1925)27BOMLR1363; 94Ind.Cas.604
Fawcett, J.1. In this case one Gurlingava got an order for maintenance against her husband Basappa in October 1919 under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. Under that order the amount awarded as maintenance to her was Rs. 15 per month and it was expressly declared that that amount was 11 charge on the joint estate. This refers to the fact that Basappa was a member of a joint Hindu family consisting of himself and two brothers Dundappa and Shivalingappa. In the order with which we are now concerned it is stated by the Magistrate that these three brothers live separate, but their property is undivided. Gurlingava applied to the Magistrate, First Class, Hukeri, praying that a cloth shop, which it was alleged belonged to the three joint brothers at Sankeshwar, should be attached and the amount of maintenance due to her should be recovered in that manner. A warrant was issued for attachment of this property of the joint family accordingly, and the police under this authority attached cer...
S.F. De Souza Vs. Wamanrao Bhai Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom117; (1925)27BOMLR1451
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is what was purchased by Mathuraprasad in 1908, when the right, title and interest of defendant No. 1, Moreshwar, in the properties Sonbhatwadi and Devakiwadi was sold in execution of the Bombay Small Cause Court decree passed against defendant No. 1 and another party.2. It is contended that because the decree was against the defendant alone, and not against him as the manager or head of the joint family, therefore only the right, title and interest of defendant No. 1 was sold, and that the interest of his son at that date would not pass by the sale. The certificate of sale clearly shows that it was intended that the defendant's share passed to the purchaser, and that the defendant had a half share in the property. That by itself would not preclude other persons entitled to shares in the property contending against the purchaser that their interest did not pass. But the liability of the sons for the debts of their father bein...
Narayan Bapuji Kshirsagar Vs. Rajimal Motiram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom81; (1925)27BOMLR1453
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case obtained a compromise decree by which it was provided that the defendant should pay Rs. 500 within the period limited in the decree against the decretal amount of Rs. 4,500, and thereafter he was to pay yearly instalments of Rs. 200 with interest at six par cent, on the balance of the principal due, In case of two defaults, the plaintiff was to be entitled to take into his possession the plaint property in consideration for Rs. 3,500.2. On May 7, 1921, the defendant was in arrears of two instalments. One of the instalments was paid on May 9, 1921, and the second one on August 30, 1921.3. On November 4, the plaintiff took out a darkhast for execution of the decree. The trial Judge looked upon the decree as a mortgage decree, and relying upon the rulings of this Court in Navsinha v. Balvant : (1921)23BOMLR1238 and Supdu v. Madhavrao (1919) 22 Bom. L. R. 780 relieved the defendants of the consequences of technical defaults, holding th...
D. Pudumjee and Co. Vs. N.H. Moos
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom28; (1925)27BOMLR1218
Coyajee, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of Mr. Justice Kemp, dated March 27, 1925. The material facts are these :On February 9, 1922, the respondent, who is the receiver in High Court Suit No. 688 of 1917, lent and advanced to F. F. Gordon, Ltd., the sum of Rs. 2,00,000, under circumstances more fully stated hereafter. An order for winding up the said company Was made on September 1, 1922, and an official liquidator was appointed. On January 17, 1923, the receiver claimed to be ranked as a secured creditor for the said sum of Rs. 2,00,000. The claim was investigated by the liquidator on March 29, 1928, and he was of opinion that it was a just one; he, therefore, ' allowed the same as a preferential claim subject to the sanction of the Court, to the extent of moveables ' on the ground that the receiver was a pledgee in possession. On April 7, the liquidator applied for directions, and Mr. Justice Kemp, after hearing counsel for the petitioning creditors, made an order ...
Bai Jiba Vs. Chandulal Ambalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom91; (1925)27BOMLR1353; 94Ind.Cas.709
Marten, J.1. This case raises a dispute under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is eminently a beneficial section parsed with the express object of preserving the peace. But in many cases it is apt to result in the parties treating it as a sort of preliminary suit with reference to the merits of their respective claims to certain immovcable property, though both parties know that those disputes cannot finally be determined except by a civil Court. I feel, therefore, that when one yes a dispute of that nature, as we have in fact here, there is an unfortunate waste of money by the litigants, and to some degree a waste of public time, in considering detailed facts or difficult points of law, because after all the only order that can be passed by the Court is a temporary order to preserve the peace, while the civil rights of the parties to the property in dispute are being settled.2. In the present case it appears that one Shivlal died on January 9, 1922, leaving a widow Jiba ...
Mayashankar Mulshankar Vs. Burjorji Meewanji Batlivala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom31; (1925)27BOMLR1449
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was one for part redemption by an assignee of a part of the mortgaged property. On July 22, 1914, defendant No. 3 executed a mortgage in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for a principal sum of Rs. 17,500 and interest, The properties mentioned in the mortgage deed were: (1) four parcels of Bhandup land; (2) 8116 square yards of Kanjur land; and (3) some interest of the mortgagor in certain property at Pare].2. On October 27, 1915, defendant No. 3 by a registered deed gave the four parcels of Bhandup land included in the above mortgage to the plaintiff in exchange for certain other lands of Bhandup received from him.3. On October 20,1918, the first and second defendants, the mortgagees, brought a suit on their mortgage against defendant No. 3 alone, and on July 8, 1918, obtained a preliminary decree for Rs. 19,462-9-3 together with interest. In that suit they included as mortgaged properties five parcels of Bhandup land, four being those mentioned i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›