Mumbai Court January 1926 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.
Pushavati Alakh Narayan Gajapatiraj Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR865
Salvesen, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated March 18, 1920, which substantially affirmed a decree in judgment, dated December 81, 1915, of the Subordinate Judge at Coconada in a suit at the instance of the appellant against the respondent. This suit arose out of a dispute as to the ownership of a lanka in the river Godavarj in the Province of Madras, the extent of which was estimated, at the commencement of the suit, at 247 acres. The appellant ia the owner of large estates, including the villaga of Kotipalli, situated on the banks of that river. The respondent is the Secretary of State for India, represented by the Collector of Godavari. It is common ground that in 1832 there existed a lanka which was Government property, and for the cultivation of which pattas were issued by the Government of the day to ryots connected with the village of Sanapalli, which lies in the neighbourhood of Kotipalli. This lanka was cultivated under these pattas for a...
Khushaldas Gokaldas and ors. Vs. Chimanlal Kalidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom425
Macleod, C.J.1. The original defendants in Suit No. 693 of 1922, in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Ahmedabad, made an application to this Court that security should be taken from the plaintiffs for the due performance of any order which His Majesty in Council might make on the appeal to the Privy Council from the decision of the High Court confirming, with certain modifications, the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiffs. The decree directed that certain money payments should be made to the plaintiffs. The defendants applied to this Court for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, and a certificate was refused. The decree was, accordingly, executed and the defendants have paid the amounts mentioned in the decree of this Court to the plaintiffs. Thereafter the defendants obtained from the Privy Council leave to appeal. They, then, applied to this Court for an order that the respondents should give security for the return of...
Balkrishna Tulsidas Vs. Sarupchand Purshottamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR656; 95Ind.Cas.1017
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. On September 23, 1913, the defendant appeared before me, while sitting on the Original Side of the High Court, in answer to a summons taken out in Suit No. 802 of 1918, whereby the plaintiff claimed from the defendant Rs. 4,748 being the price of a packet of diamonds purchased by him as mentioned in the plaint. The defendant appeared in person and admitted the claim, and a decree was passed. Till the present time the plaintiff has not succeeded in recovering anything out of the decretal amount.2. In 1922, the plaintiff took out a Darkhast No. 117 of that year in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Thana in which he described the judgment-debtor as an agriculturist. Accordingly, the proceedings were ordered to be sent to the Collector in order that he might sell the properties attached by virtue of the Circular appearing at p. 107 of the High Court Manual. The Collector returned the proceedings without the properties being sold as there was no b...
Jamnadas Damodardas Vs. Gordhandas Harilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR532; 95Ind.Cas.181
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain immoveable properties belonging to one Jivanlal, for an account of the management of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as executors and trustees of the will of Jivanlal, and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 4 from obtaining attachment or sale of the dehla (one of the immoveable properties claimed) belonging to Jivanlal in execution of a decree obtained by defendant No. 4 in the Bombay Small Causes Court against the assets of Jivanlal in the hands of defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. Himatlal, Chunilal and Harilal were three brothers. Hari-lal died leaving three sons, the plaintiff Gordhandas, his brother Vadilal, and their step-brother, the abovementioned Jivanlal. After Harilal's death, his brothers, Himatlal and Chunilal, divided the family property with Harilal's sons in 1901. Thereafter there was a partition between the plaintiff and Vadilal on the one hand and Jivanlal on the other. Vadilal is dead, The immo...
Baslingappagouda Shivlingappagouda Vs. the Secretary of State for Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR651; 95Ind.Cas.1008
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration against the Secretary of State and one Sanava kom Shiddangowda, that they, and not Sanava, were the Watandars of Nagwand Patilki watan, and for a permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from recovering from plaintiffs more than assessment or judi payable on watan lands and for costs of the suit.2. It is stated in the plaint that prior to 1812 four persons of defendant No. 2's family had owned half the Patilki watan of the village of Nagwand. But they left Nagwand for good and began to live in Mysore territory. Their watan lands remained uncultivated and thus lay fallow. Judi to the then Government remained unpaid by them. In these circumstances, the then Government, with a view to realize the judi due to it upon those lands, granted the Patilki watan to one Mudkansrowda the ancestor of the present plaintiffs, hereditarily at a reduced rate of judi for seven years. This Mudkangowda represented to the then...
Baslingappagouda Shivlingappagouda Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom417
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration against the Secretary of State and one Sanava kom Shiddangowda, that they, and not Sanava, were the Watandars of Nagwand Patilki watan, and for a permanent injunction restraining Defendants Nos. 1 and. 2 from recovering from plaintiffs more than assessment or judi payable on watan lands and for costs of the suit.2. It is stated in the plaint that prior to 1812 four persons of Defendant No. 2's family had owned half the Patilki watan of the village of Nagwand. But they left Nagwand for good and began to live in Mysore territory. Their watan lands remained uncultivated and thus lay fallow. Judi to the then Government remained unpaid by them. In these circumstances, the then Government' with a view to realize the judi due to it upon those lands, granted the Patilki watan to one Mudkangowda, the ancestor of the present plaintiffs, hereditarily at a reduced rate of judi for seven years. This Mudkangowda represented to the then Government...
Jamnadas Damodardas and anr. Vs. Gordhandas Harilal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom463
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of certain immoveable properties belonging to one Jivanlal, for an account of the management of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 as executors and trustees of the will of Jivanlal, and for an injunction restraining Defendant No.4 from obtaining attachment or sale of the dehla (one of the immoveable properties claimed) belonging to Jivanlal in execution of a, decree obtained by defendant No. 4 in the Bombay Small Causes Court against the assets of Jivanlal in the hands of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2.2. Harilal, Chunilal and Himatlal were three brothers. Harilal died leaving three sons, the plaintiff Gordhandas, his brother Vadilal, and their step-brother, the abovementioned Jivanlal. After Harilal's death, his brothers, Himatlal and Chunilal, divided the family property with Harilal's sons in 1901. Thereafter there was a partition between the plaintiff and Vadilal on the one hand and Jivanlal on the other, Vadilal died. The immoveable property ...
Gulabkhan Imamkhan Vs. AmIn Mahomedsha Fakir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR529; 95Ind.Cas.145
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioners prayed for probate of the will of one Mariarnbi, who died at Poona on May 16, 1922, The petition was opposed by her nephew, who contended that the will was a forgery, and that in any event the petitioners were not appointed executors under the will. The Judge found that the will was not a forgery, but dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners had not been appointed executors by the will.2. We think that decision was wrong. The testatrix in her will stated that moveable and immoveible estate of about Es. 880 was with her and she was the owner thereof. She then directed that her body should be buried and subsequent ceremonies performed according to her religion, and the expenses in connection therewith should be defrayed from out of the proceeds of sale of her ornaments She appointed certain persons as Panchas on her behalf who after her death were to look after the immoveable property, defray the expenses, collect the rents, an...
Gulabkhan Imamkhan and ors. Vs. AmIn Mahomedsha Fakir and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom355
Macleod, C.J.1. The petitioners prayed for probate of the Will of one Mariambi who died at Poona on May 16, 1922. The petition was opposed by her nephew who contended that the Will wag a forgery, and that in any event the petitioners were not appointed executors under the Will. The Judge found that the Will was not a forgery, but dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioners had not been appointed executors by the Will.2. We think that decision was wrong. The testatrix in her Will stated that moveable and immovable estate of about Rs. 880 was with her and she was the owner thereof. She then directed that her body should be buried and subsequent ceremonies performed according to her religion, and the expenses in connexion therewith should be defrayed from out of the proceeds of sale of her ornaments. She appointed certain persons as panchas on her behalf who, after her death, were to look after the immovable property, defray the expenses, collect the rents, and out of the ne...
Aramita Lisboa De'Souza Guido Vs. Audithrao Waghoji Raje Shirke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom613; (1927)29BOMLR1357
Taraporewala, J.1. This rule is taken out by the Suba of Baroda for setting aside the ex parte decree obtained by the plaintiffs in this suit. The ground on which the decree is sought to be set aside is that the first defendant was admittedly a minor when the suit was filed, and he was not properly represented in this suit inasmuch as a guardian ad litem was appointed for him in this suit without giving notice to the Suba of Baroda, who has been appointed a guardian of the properties of the minor situated in the Baroda State, and further that no proper notice of the suit was served on the mother of the minor or on the minor himself as required by law, and that a person, who had been given a power of attorney by the mother for managing her own affairs before she was appointed guardian of the person of the minor, had purported to instruct the attorneys in Bombay on behalf of the mother without her knowledge and consent and that the appointment of the mother as guardian on the consent of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »