Mumbai Court September 1925 Judgments
Kasamkhan Ahmedkhan Mujawar Vs. Kaji Abdulla Kaji Mahamad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR49
The Mahomedan law does not regard the office of Kazi as hereditary, that is to say, no person can claim to be a proper Kazi merely because he is the son or other descendant of a previous Kazi. A custom by which certain Kazi families hereditarily officiate as the Kazis of a village is invalid, as being opposed to Mahommedan law, so far as regards any claim to hereditary and exclusive right to officiate as Kazi at marriaga contracts, divorces and religions ceremonies.Fawcett, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, as representative of the Kazi community of Pawas, sets up an exclusive right of officiating at weddings, funerals and other roligious ritos amongst the Mussalmans of Pawas. Recently there appears to have been a dispute in connection with the Darga of this village between two sects of Muhammadans there, namely the Kazis and Dakhanis, and admittedly, until this dispute arose, the Kazi community of Pawas has, for a large number of years, as held by the two lower Courts, exercised this r...
Tag this Judgment!Devji Padamsey Vs. Thommadra Erikalappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom63; (1925)27BOMLR1494; 92Ind.Cas.555
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Maganlal Padamsey filed a suit No. 1958 of 1920 against one Thommadra Erikalappa. Thommadra filed a written statement and counter-claim not only against Maganlal but against three other persons including Devji Padamsey, the present plaintiff-appellant. Maganlal failed to obey the order made in the suit to file his affidavit of documents, whereupon Thommadra applied for an order that in default of the affidavit the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed, and that he should be held entitled to an ex parte decree on his counter-claim not only against Maganlal but against the other defendants to the counter-claim who were not in default. That order unfortunately was made, but it was obviously a wrong order, which the defendants other than Maganlal to the counter claim were entitled to treat as a nullity, and all the proceedings under that order, the putting down the suit for an ex parts decree against these defendants to the counter-claim, and the passing of a dec...
Tag this Judgment!Bapu Hambira Patil Vs. Shankar Bhau Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR46
Madgavkar, J.1. The plaintiff's father Nana had two wives and sons by each wife. During the minority of all the sons he executed a deed of partition partitioning his own share and that of each of the sons inter se. Both the lower Courts held that he had power to effect such a complete partition and agreed that ' it had been acted upon inter se by the sons of the younger wife Tai. The lower appellate Court held that it had also been acted upon inter se by the appellant and his brothers, the sons of his elder wife Yesa. In appeal it is contended for the appellant, firstly, that the father had no such power to effect a partition inter se among the minor sons, and secondly, that the conclusion of the lower appellate Court that it had been acted upon among the sons of Yesa omitted to take two material facts into consideration, namely, certain acquisition of property by the father which had gone to the share of one 5f the sons, Appa, and secondly, the joint advance taken for the construction...
Tag this Judgment!Bapu Hambira Patil Vs. Shankar Bhau Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom160
Madgavkar, J.1. The plaintiff's father Nana had two wives and sons by each wife. During the minority of all the sons he executed a deed of partition partitioning his own share and that of each of the sons inter se. Both the lower Courts held that he had power to effect such a complete partition and agreed that it had been acted upon inter se by the sons of the younger wife Tai. The lower appellate Court held that it had also been acted upon inter se by the appellant and Ins brothers, the sons of his elder wife Yesa. In appeal it is contended for the appellant, firstly, that the father had no such power to effect a partition inter se among the minor sons, and secondly, that the conclusion of the lower appellate Court that it had been acted upon among the sons of Yesa omitted be take two material facts into consideration, namely, certain acquisition of property by the father which had gone to the share of one of the sons Appa; and secondly, the joint advance taken for the construction of...
Tag this Judgment!Jinabhai Nathabhai Rashia Vs. the Collector and T.S. Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR416; 94Ind.Cas.752
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover the sum of Rs. 57-4-9 which the defendant's officers were alleged to have unjustly and unlawfully levied from him on September 22,1920, and to have a permanent injunction restraining the defendant in future from recovering either by himself or through his officers any amount in excess of what he had been paying for the land in his possession. The first question was whether the plaintiff as a tenant of the suit land was a permanent tenant of the taluqdar of Dehwan at a fixed rent or a tenant at will, It can hardly be disputed that the Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove anything in the nature of a permanent tenancy.2. The next question then was whether the arrears of rent which had been recovered by the defendant were illegally recovered under powers not possessed by the defendant who was a Taluqdari Settlement Officer. Section 111 of the Land Revenue Code has been incorporated in Section 33 of the Gujar...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Girjaprasad Chinubhai Vs. Purshottam Vithalrai Vyas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR421; 94Ind.Cas.609
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. This case originated in an application to the Subordinate -Judge in the matter of the insolvency of one Vyas Purshottam Vithalrai under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Insolvency Act for an order that the house mentioned in the application should not be sold by the Receiver as belonging to the insolvent's estate. It would appear that the house was the property of the late Sir Chinubhai. We assume for the present purpose that Sir Ohinubhai gave possession of the house to the insolvent's father Vithalrai. No document was passed by Sir Chinubhai so as to transfer the title from himself to Vithalrai. But Vithalrai passed a document to Sir Ohinubhai which, after reciting that a gift bad been made to him of the property, stated that he had been put in possession of the house on certain conditions. He admitted that he and his heirs had no right to mortgage the house or sell or create any charge on it. They had only the right to reside in the house. The ins...
Tag this Judgment!Bodhrao Gopalrao Mutalik Vs. Shrinivas Atmaram Jog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR399; 94Ind.Cas.649
Fawcett, J.1. The main facts underlying this litigation are as follows:-The Deshpande of the Karadgi Mahal granted certain lands to the plaintiffs' ancestor, on condition that he should enjoy the same as remuneration for his services as a Mutalik (i.e., deputy) of the Deshpande. The lands came into the possession of Narso Venkaji, who was the father of the plaintiffs Nos. 4, 5 and 8, and in execution of a decree passed against Narso the lands were sold to one Bashetappa at a Court auction in 1869, Baahetappa sold the lands to one Mahantappa, who in turn sold them to Balvant, the father of the defendant No. 4. The sale to Bashetappa was subject to a mortgage, and in 1881 the father of defendant No, 3 brought a suit against the mortgagees in possession of the lands. He obtained a decree, in execution of which he got possession of the lands in suit, and the defendants have been in possession ever since. Narso died on September 30, 1916, and the plaintiffs sued to recover the lands on the ...
Tag this Judgment!Bodhrao Gopalrao Mutalik Deshpande and ors. Vs. Shriniwas Atmaram Jog ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom259
Fawcett, J.1. The main facts underlying this litigation are as follows:The Deshpande of the Karadgi Mahal granted certain lands to the plaintiffs' ancestor, on condition that he should enjoy the same as remuneration for his services as Mutalik (i.e., deputy) of the Deshpande. The lands came into the possession of Narso Venkaji, who was the father of the Plaintiffs Nos. 4, 5 and 8, and in execution of a decree passed against Narso the lands were sold to one Bashetajppa at a Court auction in 1869. Bashetappa sold the lands to one Mahantappa, who in turn sold them to Balwant, the father of Defendant No 4. The sale to Bashetappa was subject to a mortgage; and in 1881 the father of Defendant No. 3 brought a suit against the mortgagees in possession of the lands. He obtained a decree, in execution of which he got possession of the lands in suit, and the defendants have been in possession ever since. Narso died on September 30, 1916, and the plaintiffs sued to recover the lands on the allegat...
Tag this Judgment!Girjaprasad Chinubhai Vs. Purshottam Vithalrai Vyas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom261
Macleod, C.J.1. This case originated in an application to the Subordinate Judge in the matter of the insolvency of one Vyas Purshottam Vithalrai under the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Insolvency Act for an order that, the house mentioned in the application should not be sold by the Receiver as belonging to the insolvent's estate. It would appear that the house was the property of the late Sir Chinubhai.' 'We assume for the present purpose that Sir Chinubhai gave possession of the house to the insolvent's father Vithalrai. No document was passed by Sir Chinubhai so as to transfer the title from himself to Vithalrai. But Vithalrai passed a document to Sir Chinubhai which, after reciting that a gift had been made to him of the property, stated that he had been put in possession of the house on certain conditions. He admitted that he and his heirs had no right to mortgage the house or sell, or create any charge on it. They had only the right to reside in the house. The insolvent mor...
Tag this Judgment!Jinabhai Nathabhai Rashia Vs. Collector and T.S. Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom325
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover the sum of Rs. 57-4-9 which the defendant's officers wore alleged to have unjustly and unlawfully levied from him on September 22, 1920, and to have a permanent injunction restraining the defendant in future from recovering either by himself or through his officers; any amount in excess of what lie had been paying for the land in his possession. The first question was whether the plaintiff as a tenant of the suit land was a permanent tenant of the taluqdar of Dehwan at a fixed rent or a tenant at will. It can hardly be disputed that the Judge was right in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove anything in the nature of a permanent tenancy.2. The next question then was whether the arrears of rent which had been recovered by the defendant were illegally recovered under powers not possessed by the defendant who was a Taluqdari Settlement Officer. Section 111 of the Land Revenue Code has been incorporated in Section 33 of the Gujarat Taluqd...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »