Mumbai Court October 1926 Judgments
Lalit Mohan Pal Roy Vs. Dayamoyi Roy Chowdhurani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR759
Phillimore, J.1. Their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment of the High Court is right for the reasons given by that Court and especially for the reasons at line 25 on p. 4 of the second part of the record where their Lordships say :-It is possible that although no charge was created, the original debt having been for lawful purposes, the creditor might have recovered his debt from the estate left by Bharat, if he had chosen to do so, But in order to make the estate liable he ought to have framed his suit in a proper manner. What he asked for was simply to have a personal decree against Monomohini and the guardian who was made the second defendant. The Court passed a decree against the minor alone. It does not appear anywhere that the minor was made a party to the suit as representing her father's estate.2. Their Lordships will only add to this that they have been very much struck by the different framing of the two suits : the suit against the father's estate in which the origin...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Prosad Singh Chowdhury Vs. Surajmul Jalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR752
Phillimore, J.1. On this appeal as it was lodged various points were presented which have not been insisted upon in argument before their Lordships' Board. The one matter to which counsel for the appellant have confined themselves is the question of the rate of interest and whether it should be simple or compound from the date either of the decree of the High Court or, as put by one of the learned counsel, the decree of the Court of first instance.2. Really this matter is determined beyond question by Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure. This may, for this particular case of mortgages, differ from the general provision of Section 34 of the Code; but if so, the particular avoids the general. Under Rule 2 of that Order it is provided:-In a suit for foreclosure, if the plaintiff succeeds, the Court shall pass a decree-(a) ordering that an account be taken of what will be due to the plaintiff for principal and interest on the mortgage, and for his coats of the suit (if any) awarded ...
Tag this Judgment!Umed Mal Vs. Chand Mal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR755
Viscount Haldane, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Chief Commissioner, Ajmer-Merwara, in his revisional jurisdiction, which reversed a decree of the Court of the District Judge. The latter had confirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge at Ajmer dismissing a suit instituted in his Court by the appellants. The subject-matter of the suit was fifteen and a half bighas of land, which, it is agreed, belonged originally to one Haji Mohammed Khan, and at his death had devolved on his daughter, one Musammat Fatima Begum, along with a bungalow called in the suit bungalow No. 5. The proceedings were for a declaration of title and for possession.2. On July 7, 1893, Musammat Fatima and her husband had executed a mortgage charging some of the properties belonging to them for a debt due to the predecessors-in-title of the appellants. The properties mortgaged to them were enumerated in the mortgage deed. Among them was what was described as follows:-One bungalow No. 5, with outhouses, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Morarji Kanji Vs. Bai Panbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR683
Mirza, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts continued:] Bai Panbai's application is based on the English practice in the Probate Division. Williams on Executors, Vol. II, p. 1663, (11th Edition), quotes that practice to be as follows:-An executor or administrator may be compelled to exhibit an inventory, and render an account of his administration of the personal estate of his testator or intestate in the Probate Division at the instance of a legatee or next of kin, or of a creditor; but neither an executor nor administrator can be cited by the Probate Division ex officio to account.2. According to Tristram & Coote's Probate Practice, p. 324 (latest edition), the proceedings are instituted by means of a summons in Chambers.3. The Advocate General on behalf of the applicant contends that our Court is bound to follow the English practice under the provisions of Rule 609 of the High Court Rules. That rule provides that:-In cases not provided for by this chapter, or by the rules ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Jivi Vs. Narsing Lalbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom264; (1927)29BOMLR332; 101Ind.Cas.403
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties are Hindus. The wife pleads that she has been abandoned and deserted by her husband, that he has remarried a second wife-a girl of seven or eight-that he has refused to maintain the defendant or to take her back, and that when she threatened him with a summons for maintenance he retorted by bringing this suit, which is not bona fide, and, accordingly, the Court should not grant any relief.2. At the trial the defendant tendered evidence in support of her defence, but both the Courts below rejected it on the ground that it affords no defence in law. Accordingly, for the purposes of this appeal we must take it as if all the statements in the written statement were admitted and that yet-according to the plaintiff- they would afford no defence in law to a suit of this nature.3. We have had an interesting discussion as to the origin of a suit of this description. Admittedly, its origin is no...
Tag this Judgment!Rangavva Hanmappa Bidri Vs. Sheshappa Bidri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom228; (1927)29BOMLR327; 101Ind.Cas.416
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff brings a suit for possession as the widow of one Hanmappa, who died without issue on November 16, 1921. The defendant, who is his nephew, s up a will of November 12, 1921, Exhibit 49.2. Now, it is clear on the evidence that this nephew, Sheshappa, who is a large beneficiary under the will, had requested the deceased to make such a will several months before his death. According to Sheshappa he did not thereafter ask the deceased to make such a will, but Gadgeppa, a brother of the deceased, came to the deceased's house a few days before his death and arranged for this will. Gadgeppa also takes a benefit under the alleged will. It is clear on the evidence that it was these two beneficiaries, Sheshappa and Gadgeppa, who were instrumental in getting this will prepared and in procuring the alleged witnesses to attest its execution. The other beneficiary under the will is the plaintiff, who is given a house for her life.3. Now, under these circumsta...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhmichand Khetsey Punja Vs. Ratanbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom115; (1927)29BOMLR78
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. This case raises important and interesting questions of law as to the liability of a landlord to one of his tenants for the collapse on March 23, 1923, of part of a large building let out mainly in rooms. The suit is brought by the widow and three minor daughters and mother of one Umersey Punja under the Indian Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (which corresponds to Lord Campbell's Act in England), against the defendant as owner of Anand Building, Broach Street, Bombay, for damages for the latter's negligence in that he 'allowed the same building to remain in ruinous and dangerous condition until by reason of want of repairs it fell and caused the' death of the said Umersey Punja and twelve other persons. The defence is a denial of the alleged negligence, or that the defendant owed any duty to Umersey to keep the suit premises in repair. The trial Judge gave judgment for the plaintiffs and awarded. them Rs. 6,500 damages. The defendant appeals.2. The first question to d...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Umar Sobani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom163; (1927)29BOMLR196
Shah, J.1. The papers relating to the inquisition touching the death of Umar Haji Yusuf Sobani have been submitted to this Court by the Coroner. In his letter of reference the Coroner has stated that the jury have returned a verdict which, in his opinion, is 'antagonistic with the evidence given by well-known medical men and with the circumstantial evidence in the case.' Notices were ordered to be issued by this Court to the parties who appeared on the record to be interested in the inquisition, namely, the Police Commissioner, the widow of the deceased, and the brother of the deceased. Before us now there is no appearance on behalf of the brother of the deceased, but the learned Advocate General has appeared on behalf of the Police Commissioner, and Mr. Velani has appeared on behalf of the widow of the deceased.2. As apparently this is the first case of its kind in which the Coroner has submitted the papers in order that the inquisition may be either amended or quashed, it is desirabl...
Tag this Judgment!Jetha Devji and Co. Vs. Durgadutt Ramnivas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom365; (1927)29BOMLR416
Mirza, J.1. The plaintiffs have attached a deposit of Rs. 5;000 made by the defendant with the East India Cotton Association of which he is a member under certain articles of the Association. Plaintiffs are judgment creditors for Rs. 3,418-9-0, interest thereon and costs of the suit. They have served a prohibitory order on the East India Cotton Association under the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 46. They have also taken out a garnishee notice calling upon the East India Cotton Association to pay to the Sheriff of Bombay Rs. 5,000 attached in their hands on or before September 30, 1926, or to appear in Court to show cause why they should not make the deposit. The East India Cotton Association have appeared on that notice and shown cause against it. They point out that under the clauses of their Articles of Association relating to such deposits they have absolute control over them as long as the depositor continues to be a member of the Association. The deposit carries interest at five p...
Tag this Judgment!The Central India Spinning Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. G.i. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR414
Mirza, J.1. This is a Chamber summons taken out by the plaintiffs against the defendants for an order on the defendants to disclose by a supplemental affidavit of documents certain statements made by the defendants' servants with reference to the subject-matter of this suit to the defendants, and which are referred to in certain correspondence of which disclosure has been made. The defendants claim privilege for these documents. When the matter came first before me I made an order on August 27, 1926, ordering the defendants to make a supplemental affidavit disclosing these documents, which were admittedly in their possession and to claim, if so advised, privilege for them. In pursuance of that order the defendants have now filed a supplemental affidavit of documents disclosing these documents, but claiming privilege for them. In the affidavit on behalf of the defendants in showing cause it is stated that these statements are in the nature of evidence exclusively of the defendants' case...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »