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.
Haridas Narayandas Bhatia Vs. Devkuvarbai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.820
1. The facts of this case are as follows. One Narajandas started business in Bombay as a piece-goods merchant many years ago. He commenced his venture without the aid of any joint ancestral nucleus and amassed considerable wealth. While he was carrying on the business, the present plaintiff, Haridas, was born to him, and when Haridas reached the age of eighteen or thereabouts, he was associated with his father in the business. The trial Judge remarked:As the plaintiff grew to manhood and the father advanced to old age, more and more burden of the business was shouldered by the plaintiff and less by the father. The father and son lived and messed also jointly. All the property, and it is said by the son to be worth a lac, was acquired gradually from the profits of the business. 2. Then shortly before his death, Narayandas gave away a piece of land, the subject-matter of the present suit, to his daughter the defendant. The plaintiff was aware of the gift, and knew that his father, with w...
Shri Bala Maharaj Vs. Sakharam Venkatesh Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR633; 95Ind.Cas.851
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, now appellant before us, filed this suit as Inamdar of Badkundri to recover from the defendants the difference between the revised survey assessment and the Local Fund cess on Survey No. 45 of Badkundri and the assessment actually paid by the defendants for six ^ears from 1916-1921 with interest and costs.2. The defendants' ancestors had been entered as Khatedars of Survey No. 45 since 1843. Although the assessment at that time was Rs. 16-8-0, it is admitted that from 1813 to the present day the same amount of rent, viz., Rs. 2-12-0, had always been paid, A Government survey of the land took place about 1887 and the rates according to that survey were introduced in 1903, whereby the assessment on the suit land became Rs. 17. The survey rates were again revised in 1917, and the assessment was raised to Rs. 21-14-0. The defendants, not having any grant of the land ensuring them possession on payment of the annual rent of Rs. 2-12-0, would be lia...
Timmanna Parmeshwar Bhat Vs. Govind Ganpati Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR523; 94Ind.Cas.656
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. A partition decree was passed in Suit No. 306 of 1911 on April 8, 1914. By that decree it was declared that plaintiff along with defendants Nos. 4 and 5 was entitled to ones sixth share in the whole of the property at Gokaran, other than the house-site situate in Survey No. 27, to one-sixth share in Survey Nos. 1 and 43 in addition to Survey Nos. 51 and 54, to one acre in Survey No. 52 and two acres and two gunthas in Survey No. 36 all situate in the village of Kadekod. The lands were to be got partitioned through the Collector, and the house was to be got partitioned through the Commissioner.2. The Collector endeavoured to carry out the terms of the decree, but he seems to have found some difficulty in doing so, with the result that he has not followed the direction in the decree. Fur instance, he allowed the plaintiffs four acres and twelve gunthas in Survey No. 1 in Kadekod, although the whole area was five acres and one guntha and plaintiffs were held to...
Timmanna Parmeshwar Bhat Vs. Govind Ganpati Bhat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom258
Macleod, C.J.1. A partition decree was passed in Suit No. 306 of 1911 on April 8, 1914. By that decree it was declared that plaintiff, along with Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 was entitled to one-sixth share in the whole 6of the property of Gokarah other than the house site situate in Survey No. 27, to one-sixth share in Survey Nos. 1 and 43 in addition to Survey Nos. 51 and 54, to one acre in Survey No. 52 and two acres and two gunthas in Survey No. 36 - all situate in the village of Kadekod. The lands were to be got partitioned through the Collector, and the house was to be got partitioned through the Commissioner.2. The Collector endeavoured to carry out the terms of the decree, but he seems to have found some difficulty in doing so, with the result that he has not followed the direction in the decree. For instance, he allowed the plaintiffs four acres and twelve gunthas in Survey No. 1 in Kadetod, although the whole area was five acres and one gunfcha and plaintiffs were held to be entit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›