Mumbai Court February 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.
Collector of Thana Vs. Chaturbhuj Radha Krishna and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom365
Macleod, C.J.1. The claimant asked for a reference to the District Court against the award of the Collector with regard to his land measuring seven acres, seven gunthas and eight annas, situate on the road between Chembut and Ghatkoper. The Acquiring Officer awarded Rs. 500 per acre. The Assistant Judge increased the award to ten annas a square yard. He depended for that valuation on a sale to the claimant actual on August 29, 1919, at ten annas a square yard; and unless that sale could be voided on the ground that it was not a fair and bona fide sale, then it obviously afforded a good basis for an award. The acquiring Officer said:The point for decision is whether the rate of ten annas a square yard or Rs. 1-8 a square yard could be accepted as a rate representing the true market value of the land at the date of the declaration. The first transaction in this business was dated August 28, 1919. We should find out whether there were genuine sales of land in this locality or in its vicin...
Raghunath Shivram Kulkarni and ors. Vs. Narayan Chintaman Deshmukh and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom368
Macleod, C.J.1. In Suit No. 53 of 1915 in the Rajapur Court, in the Ratnagiri District a decree was pissed in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,450 payable by instalments. Rupees 1,000 out of the decretel amount was to carry interest at three per cent. The defendant defaulted, so that the plaintiff took out a darkhast in May 1920. The defendant replied to the darkhast with a darkhast of his own asking to be relieved against forfeiture. The darkhast, for some reason or other, did not come to a hearing before the Subordinate Judge until February 26, 1923, when the default was excused, but the Judge directed that the balance of the decretal amount should carry interest at seven per cent, instead of three. In appeal, the District Judge confirmed this order.2. We have now before us a sale deed of December 30, 1921, by the judgment-debtor, of a portion of his property for Rs. 1,500, and it was intended that the purchaser should pay out of the consideration money sufficient to pay off the dec...
In Re: Pampappa Ballalrao Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR490
Marten, J.1. On or about December 9, 1925, Mr. Monteath, the District Magistrate of Dharwar, filed a complaint before Mr. Acott, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dharwar, against the present applicant, Pampappa Ballalrao Desai, requesting that Pampappa be tried for an offence under Section 211 or 182 of the Indian Penal Code or such other offence as the inquiry may disclose during the trial, Pampappa presented an appeal to Mr. Ferrers, the Sessions Judge, praying that this complaint might be directed to be withdrawn. On January 11, 1926, the Sessions Judge dismissed that appeal. Pampappa has now presented two applications to this Court, viz, No, 9 of 1926 for a transfer of the proceedings, and No. 16 of 1926, praying that the complaint may be directed to be withdrawn. I will deal with the latter application first, as it is the only one which has so far been argued before us.2. The facts leading up to the above complaint are shortly as follows:-Pampappa, the applicant, appears to be the...
Jadhav Gopal Vs. Samal Bechar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR545; 95Ind.Cas.511
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff, Jadhav Gopal, brought this suit for redemption against Samal Bechar, defendant No. 1, and four other defendants with whom I am not concerned in this appeal, The plaintiff sued to redeem land measuring seven acres and nine gunthas originally mortgaged by one Jesang Umed in 1839 to Vithal Ranchhod, the ancestor of the defendants. Vithal's family separated into two branches, one branch dealt With three acres and twenty gunthas of the mortgaged land and the other branch dealt with the remainder. Bechar sub-mortgaged three acres and twenty gunthas in 1878 to the present plaintiff's father. In 1922 plaintiff's father acquired the right to the equity of redemption of all the property. It is con-ceded that his claim to redeem the land now in possesion of the defendants, other than defendant No. 1, has become barred by limitation.2. With regard to defendant No. 1 it was contended that the mortgage of 1839 was kept alive by an acknowledgment made by the...
Ayub Haji Suleman Vs. JainuddIn Gulamali Maulvi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR540
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover compensation for his mango trees unlawfully out by the defendant, valuing the claim at Rs. 100. The defendant alleged that he was the owner of the trees and the plaintiff was not the owner, and had never been in possession. He admitted that he had out the trees. The issues were:-1 Does the plaintiff prove his title to the trees in dispute ?2 Does he prove that he was in possession of them within twelve years before suit ?3. What amount, if any, is he entitled to recover for damages in respect of the same ?2. No issue was raised whether the Court had jurisdiction to try the case, and there is no dispute with regard to the facts. The plaintiff purchased the trees without the land, in 1898, by a registered sale-deed. Three years before suit the defendant, who had recently come to reside in the village, purchased the land on which these trees stood by a registered sale-deed. He made no enquiry by searching the Sub-Registrar's office...
In Re : Pampappa Ballalrao Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom284
Marten, J.1. On or about December 9, 1925, Mr. Monteath, the District Magistrate of Dharwar, filed a complaint before Mr. Acott, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Dharwar, against the present applicant, Pampappa Ballalrao Desai, requesting that Pampappa be tried for an offence under Section 211 or Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code or such other offence as the inqiry may disclose during the trial.2. Pampappa presented an appeal to Mr. Ferrers, the Sessions Judge, praying that this complaint might be directed to be withdrawn. On January 11, 1926, the Sessions Judge dismissed that appeal. Pampappa has now presented two applications to this Court, viz., No., 9 of 1926, for a transfer of the proceedings, and No. 16 of 1926, praying that the complaint may be directed to be withdrawn. I will deal with the latter application first, as it is the only one which has so far been argued before us.3. The facts leading up to the above complaint are shortly as follows : Pampappa, the applicant, appe...
In Re: Mallappa Basappa Kurnahallu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom313; 95Ind.Cas.62
Marten, J.1. This is an application in revision with reference to a complaint under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The First Glass Magistrate has gone in great detail into the title of the property in dispute. Indeed the twenty-five typed pages of his judgment are mainly concerned with this question of title. In the result he held that the civil Court was the proper tribunal to decide the real dispute between the parties. He also found that the Hindu family in question was still joint, and that the lands and houses concerned in this proceeding were jointly in the possession and management of the applicant and opponents, and that consequently Sections 145 and 146 did not apply.2. The grievance now urged before us by the applicant is that the learned Magistrate should not have gone into the question of title, but should have concerned himself only with the question of possession, and that he has consequently Tpproached the case from a wrong angle, as a considerable degree I ...
Ayub Haji Suleman Vs. JainuddIn Gulamalli Maulvi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom362; 95Ind.Cas.270
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover compensation for his mango trees unlawfully out by the defendant, valuing the claim at Rs. 100. The defendant alleged that he was the owner of the trees and the plaintiff was not the owner, and had never been in possession. He admitted that he had cut the trees. The issues were:1. Does the plaintiff prow his title to the trees in dispute? 2. Does he prove that he was in possession of them within twelve years before suit? 3. What amount, if any, is he entitled to recover for damages in respect of the same2. No issue was raised whether the Court had jurisdiction to try the case, and there is no dispute with regard to the facts. The plaintiff purchased the trees without the land, in 1898, by a registered sale-deed. Three years before suit the defendant, who had recently come to reside in the village, purchased the land on which these trees stood by a registered sale-deed. He made no enquiry by searching the Sub-Registrar's office to see whethe...
Jadhav Gopal Vs. Samal Bechar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom363
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff, Jadhav Gopal, brought this suit for redemption against Samal Bechar, Defendant No. 1, and four other defendants with whom I. am not concerned in this appeal.2. The plaintiff sued to redeem land measuring seven acres and nine gunthas originally mortgaged by one Jesang Umed in 1839 to Vithal Banchhod, the ancestor of the defendants. Vithal's family separated into two branches, one branch dealt with three acres and twenty gunthas of the mortgaged land and the other branch dealt with the remainder. Bechar sub-mortgaged three acres and twenty gunthas in 1878.to the present plaintiff's father. In 1922 plaintiff's father acquired the right to the equity of redemption of all the property. It is conceded that his claim to redeem the land now in possession of the defendants, other than Defendant No. 1, has become barred by limitation.3. With regard to Defendant No. 1 it was contended that the mortgage of 1839 was kept alive by an acknowledgment made by the father o...
Hira Jitajishet Marwadi Vs. Daula Khetajishet Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR539; 95Ind.Cas.259
Norman Macleod, Kt.,C.J.1. The appeal must be allowed. The decision in Mulji v. Goverdhandas : AIR1923Bom36 has no application to the case, That case was decided under Section 20 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. Section 21 says :-'No agriculturist shall be arrested or imprisoned in execution of a decree for money passed whether before or after this Act comes into force.' So that the question is whether a person sought to be arrested is an agriculturist at the time of the arrest, and if he is, then he is exempt.2. The case must, therefore, go back to the trial Court for a finding on whether the defendant is entitled to exemption under Section 21. The appellant is entitled to his costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »