Mumbai Court September 1925 Judgments
Alamkhan Mahomedkhan and ors. Vs. Banemiya Rasul
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom306
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to damages from the defendant-respondent for malicious prosecution. The appellants succeeded in the trial Court but failed in first appeal.2. The parties are Muhammadans of Sangamner, a town divided into several quarters. The appellants are the Panchas for the quarter called Naikwadpura und they are in management of the burial) ground appertaining to the Municipality, to which they had, at the expense of the Muhammadans of that quarter, made an embankment costing Rs. 3,000. This they sought to realise by contributions from the Muhammadans of that quarter and had passed a resolution, which, how ever, is not in writing, to that efiect.3. The respondent is a retired police prosecutor and had occupied a house outside that quarter but has lately purchased a house which is just within the quarter. On October 19, 1918, the respondent's infant died. He brought it for burial to the appellants' ground b...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Mahipat Desh Pande Vs. Balkrishna Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom308
Macleod, J.1. The petitioner's father in this case mortgaged the kulkarni and Deshpande watan lands to the opponent under two mortgage deeds, dated June 10, 1913, and, August 6, 1914, respectively, the former by himself and as, guardian of his minor sons including the petitioner, and the latter by himself alone, for cash consideration. The petitioner's father then instituted Suit No. 33 of 1920 in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, Athni, against the opponent for accounts and redemption of the two mortgages under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. The Subordinate Judge allowed redemption and passed an order that the plaintiff should continue, to remain in possession of mortgaged land; that the plaintiff should pay to the defendant Rs. 2,210 and defendant's costs in this suit with interest on Rs. 1,460 from the date of suit till the date of realization on or before June 8, 1921; and that on failure to pay to the defendant as stated above, defendant should apply to t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhau Vs. Budha Manaku Dhar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1925
Reported in: 96Ind.Cas.166
1. The following principles seem to me to have been laid down, so far as this Presidency is concerned:(1) A stranger-purchaser of the undivided share of a co-parcener in a joint Hindu family, if out of possession, should not be given joint possession with the other coparceners, but should be left to his remedy of a suit for partition: Balaji Anant Rajddiksha v. Ganeh Janardan Kamati 3 Ind. Dec. 330 Pandu Vithoji Ladke v. Goma Ramji Marwadi 21 Bom. L.R. 213 Ishrappa Ganap Hegde v. Krishna Putta Shankar Hegde 24 Bom. L.R. 428 : A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 413.(2) On the other hand, a co-parcener, who has been excluded, may obtain joint possession with such a purchaser, who has obtained possession of the joint family property: Bhiku v. Puttu 8 Bom. L.R. 99 and the prior rulings there cited.(3) The purchaser in possession need not be ejected in a suit for recovery of possession brought by an excluded coparcener, but can be declared to be entitled to hold (pending a partition) as a tenant-in-common wi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimanna Kumaji Sonar Vs. Venichand Fattechand Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR73
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit to recover Rs. 800 and interest from the defendants, which were deposited with the defendants by their uncle Vasudeo. They alleged that Vasudeo used to deposit his savings in the defendants' shop from before 1907, for which a pass-book was given to Vasudeo in which the deposit amount and its interest were entered by him, as also the amounts withdrawn; that on October 27, 1916, a balance 'was struck showing Rs. 800 due from the defendants and that notice was given to repay on October 15, 1919. Vasudeo himself died in July 1918, and the plaintiffs claim under a will made by Vasudeo whereby this deposit amount was devised to them.2. The principal defence raised by the defendants was that the plaintiffs' claim was barred by limitation, That question would depend on whether Vasudeo's money was lent to the defendants or deposited with them.3. The trial Court found that there was a deposit and gave a decree to the plaintiffs.4. On app...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaji Vishram Nadkarni Vs. Gangaji Ambaji Metry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR71
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit for pos possession of certain lands, saying that defendant No, 1 held them as occupancy tenant, but he had forfeited his right to hold them under Section 10 of the Khoti Settlement Act by passing a mortgage of the said lands. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who are sons of defendant No. 1, contend that their share of the property, which was ancestral, was not affected by this forfeiture. The trial Judge held that the forfeiture affected the whole property, as the mortgage was passed by the father as manager of the family during the minority of his sons.2. The appellate Judge held that forfeiture under Section 10 of the Khoti Settlement Act, 1880, affected only the share of the father, which was one-third in the property, and the decree of the lower Court was modified to that extent.3. The plaintiff has appealed. Section 10 of the Khoti Settlement Act is as follows :-If the land held by a privileged occupant for failure of heirs or is...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavrao Raste Vs. Imam Bapu Sherkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR433; 94Ind.Cas.737
Fawcett, J.1. These appeals arise out of three suits Nos. 101 102 and 103 of 1920. They were tried together, and the appeals from the decision therein were also dealt with together in the lower appellate Court, Here also the three appeals can conveniently be disposed of in one judgment.2. The plaintiff in each of these suits is Sirdar Raste, a Saran-jamdar residing at Poona, and he sued to recover possession of the plaint lands, alleging in each case that it was part of his Saranjam property; that Umabai, as guardian of the previous minor Saranjamdar, had let it under a kabulayat to the defendants' ancestor; that this act of hers was beyond her authority and against the rule that a Saranjamdar's estate is only a life estate, which is resumed by Government on the death of the Saranjamdar and granted again to his successor, and that accordingly the plaintiff is not bound by these particular grants or leases.3. The material facts are that in 1862 a young boy named Gangadharrao was adopted...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Punjushet Vs. Motiram Budhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR440; 94Ind.Cas.777
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code, asking the Court to revise an order passed by the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Nandurbar in Suit No. 132 of 1923. After several adjournments, the hearing was fixed for December 15, 1924, on which date the plaintiff-opponent presented an application to withdraw the suit with liberty to bring a fresh suit on the grounds that the plaint was not explicit; that the averments about fraud were not clear, and that there was no explicit assertion that the sale deed was in the nature of a mortgage; that though there was a prayer for accounts and instalments, proper stamp had not been paid and there was no issue about mortgage; and that, therefore, the suit was likely to be dismissed because the pleadings were vague and insufficient.2. The applicants-defendants raised several objections to the withdrawal of the suit being allowed, viz., the plaintiff had already once amended the plaint but never claimed redempt...
Tag this Judgment!Atmaram Jamnadas Shah Vs. Nazir, District Court
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR431; 94Ind.Cas.704
Madgavkar, J.1. It is argued for the appellant that the residuary legatees are the appellant and not Babli but a son of Babli, if any, in equal shares; and as no such son was in existence at the time of the testator's death, the bequest to him is under the rule laid down since the Tagore case void and Atma ram becomes sole residuary legatee. The Hindu Disposition of Property Act XV of 1916 has no application to the will which came into effect on the testator's death in 1902,2. [His lordship after setting out the clauses of the will and the postscript concluded:] The will and the clauses quoted above with the postscript leave no doubt as to the testator's intentions. He wanted to leave the residue in equal shares to Atmaram and to Babli's son, if any. And whatever the confusion in Clause 45, the postscript makes it quite clear that the residuary legatee if any, along with Atmaram, was not Babli, but Babli's son, even if he was born after Atmaram attained twenty-five years and had been p...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaji Vishram Nadkarni Vs. Gangaji Ambaji Metry and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom166
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit for possession of certain lands, saying that Defendant No. 1. I held them as occupancy tenant, but he had forfeited his right to hold them under Section 10 of the Khoti Settlement Act by passing a mortgage of the said lands. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4, who are sons of Defendant No. 1, contend that their share of the property, which was ancestral, was not affected by this forfeiture. The trial Judge held, that the forfeiture affected the whole property, as the mortgage was passed by the father as manager of the family during the minority of his sons.2. The appellate Judge held that forfeiture under Section 10 of the Khoti Settlement Act, 1880, affected only the share of the father, which was one-third in the property and the decree of the lower Court was modified to that extent.3. The plaintiff has appealed. Section 10 of the Khoti Settlement Act is as follows:If the land hild by a privileged occupant lapes for failure of heirs or is forfeite...
Tag this Judgment!Atmaram Jamnadas Shah and ors. Vs. Nazir, District Court and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom381
Madgavkar, J.1. It is argued for the appellant that the residuary legatees are the appellant and not Babli but a son of Babli, if any, in equal shares; and as no such son was in existence at the time of the testator's death, the bequest to him is under the rule laid down since the Tagore case void, and Atmaram becomes sole residuary legatee. The Hindu Disposition of Property Act (XV of 1916) has no application to the Will which came into effect on the testator's death in 1902. (After quoting the clauses of the Will and the postscript as above the judgment proceeded further.) The Will and the clauses quoted above with the postcript leave no doubt as to the testator's intentions. He wanted to leave the residue in equal shares to Atmaram, and to Babli's son, if any. And whatever the confusion in Clause 45, the postscript makes it quite clear that the residuary legatee, if any, along with Atmaram, was not Babli, but Babli's son, even if he was born after Atmaram attained twenty-five years ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »