Mumbai Court March 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.
Lakhmi Chand Vs. Musammat Anandi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR910
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated November 2, 1922, of the High Court of Allahabad, which confirmed a decree, dated July 18, 1919, of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut by which the suit had been dismissed.2. The suit had been instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on June 5, 1918, and by the plaint in it the three following declarations were claimed :-(a) The will, dated June 5, 1915, and registered on Jane 9, 1915, executed by the plaintiff and Baldeo Sahai. deceased, on account of its being against the rules of succession under the Hindu Law, is absolutely invalid and null and void and it has no effect upon the right of survivorship of the plaintiff in reaped) of the estate, business, the zanindari, landed and house properties, bonds, mortgage deeds, promissory notes, money-lending business with asamis on account-books, parole debts, cash, gold and silver ornaments, convey once, household and estate goods and articles of convenience and comfort, etc, of a...
Vallabhdas Mulji Vs. Pranshankar Narbheshankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1926
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1519
Fawcett, J.1. This suit relates to a house in Bazaar Gate Street, Bombay, which in 1907 was owned by the plaintiff, On July 8, 1907, he executed two mortgage deeds in respect of this property. The first mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 30,000, to Mulji Meghji and Narbheshankar Ghellabhai.2. The first defendant Pranshankar is the son of Narbheshankar, and defendants Nos. 2 arid 3 are the sons of Mulji Meghji. He and Narbheshankar are dead.3. On the same day the plaintiff mortgaged the property, subject to the first mortgage, to defendants Nos. 4 and 5 for Rs. 3,000. The due date for payment under these mortgages was July 17, 1908, and both the documents contain the usual power of sale, subject to the provisions of Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, in default of payment of the mortgage debt.4. About April 1908 the plaintiff admittedly was in monetary difficulties and left Bombay for Morvi and Kathiawar; and he was away from Bombay till some time in 1918. No payments were made on a...
Muthu K.R. Alagappa Chettiar Vs. Nagindas Fulchand Chinoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom383
Macleod, C.J.1. On November 2, 1925, a petition was presented in this Court alleging that one Muthu K.R. v. Alagappa Chottiar of Madura, who carried on business at various places including Bombay, had committed certain acts of insolvency within three months of the date of the petition, in that (a) he had mortgaged one of the properties belonging to him at Madura for Rs. 13,000 to a creditor, Messrs. Jhaverchand Gumanchand, as security for their debt of Rs. 25,000; (b) that the said mortgage was executed when many of the branches of the said Chettiar's business were in insolvent circumstances and was made to defraud the creditors ; and (c) that with intent to defraud the creditors of the said firm he stopped payment to the creditors since last three months. All the petitioners,' who sent their men to call for the money due to them, were given a reply by his agent, Nagalingam Pillai, in charge of the Bombay firm, that; his master had stopped payment, and that as no remittances were sent ...
Rajaram Tukaram Vs. Central Bank of India Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom481
Fawcett, J.1. In this suit the defendant bank in their written statement admit that paras. 1 to 3 of the plaint are correct; and the point at issue is a purely legal one, which has been argued without the necessity of taking any evidence. The defendant bank brought a suit, No. 3965 of 1924, against the plaintiff trading in the name of S. Narayen & Co., to enforce an equitable mortgage created by the plaintiff in their favour, and, on December 9, 1924, by consent, a preliminary decree was passed in favour of the bank. That decree was superseded by a final decree for sale on July 16, 1925. The mortgaged property was situated at Andheri, which admittedly is outside the local limits of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of this Court. But at that time, according to the ruling in Yasvantrao Holkar v. Dadabhai [1890] 14 Bom. 353, the Court had jurisdiction, both because according to that ruling a suit on a mortgage was not a suit for land within the meaning of Clause 12 of the Letters ...
Pursuttamdas Agarwalla Vs. Gobind P. Agarwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR917
Chancellor, J.1. This appeal raises a question as to the construction of the will of Babulal Agarwalla, who died in the year 1873. The will is in the English language and states (among other things) the testator's intention to erect a mandir and suitable buildings for the residence of members of his family and for the reception of poor and homeless persons at Sri Brindaban. Then by a clause, which has been referred to as Clause 17, he directs that out of the income of his estate ' a num of Rs. 650 (subject to the increase hereinafter mentioned) be remitted monthly and every month by my executors or trustees to the managers for the time being of the mandir of Brindaban to be erected as aforesaid, out of which sum Rs. 100 shall be paid to' certain persons in succession; and then the clause continued, 'and the residue or surplus shall be appropriated towards the expenses of performing pujas at or otherwise maintaining the said mandir and of the daily feeding of the poor there.' The benefi...
Balkrishna Raoji Velankar Vs. Parashram Mahadeo Ketkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR949
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 11,616 from five defendants on a mortgage bond, dated October 24, 1917. Defendant No. 6 was made a party because he was a prior mortgagee. The property mortgaged belonged to defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who were brothers, members of a joint family. Defendant No. 1 executed a mortgage for himself and as agent for his brother. The property mortgaged consisted of lands and a house. It is admitted, first, that defendant No. 1 did not mortgage the property as manager of a joint family ; secondly, he did not mortgage the family property for family necessity; and, thirdly, that the power of attorney given to defendant No, 1 by defendant No. 2 did not empower defendant No. 1 to sell defendant No. 2's share in the house. Defendants Nos. 8, 4 and 5 are the purchasers of the equity of redemption from defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear at the hearing. Having parted with the equity of redemption, they had no furt...
Narottamdas Lallubhai Patel Vs. Bai Dhanlaxmi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1152
Norman Macleod, Kt. C.J.1. These three suits arise from a lease executed by one Dhanlxmi to Narottamdas, on August 27, 1919, whereby Dhanlaxmi let out to Narottamdas a certain area of land for a period of three years at a certain rent, On September 30, 1919, the plaintiff alleged that the tenant surrendered the lease to her on payment of Rs. 15,000, being allowed to remain in possession for four months longer in order to remove his timber, But he did not surrender possession, and therefore, was liable for damages.2. The question arose whether the two documents passed between the parties on September 30, 1919, required registration. The document passed by the tenant Narottamdas was as follows;-I have taken on rent from you your land for Lati lying close to Kabir Wadi out of your land bearing Survey Number 320 situate within the aim limits of mouje Sher Kotda. The time fixed in respect thereof is three years, which has not yet expired, but you have to build a market on the land on which ...
Balkrishna Raoji Velankar and ors. Vs. Parashram Mahadeo Ketkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom479
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 11,616 from five defendants on a mortgage bond, dated October 24, 1917. Defendant No. 6 was made a party because he was a prior mortgagee. The property mortgaged belonged to Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who were brothers, members of a joint family. Defendant No. 1 executed a mortgage for himself and as agent for his brother. The property mortgaged consisted of lands and a house. It is admitted, first, that Defendant No. 1 did not mortgage the property as manager of a joint family; secondly, he did not mortgage the family property for family necessity; and, thirdly, that the power of attorney given to Defendant No. 1 by Defendant No. 2 did not empower Defendant No. 1 to sell Defendant No. 2's share in the house. Defendants Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the purchasers of the equity of redemption from Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear at the hearing. Having parted with the equity of redemption, they had no further interest ...
Chaturbhuj Bhavanidas Vs. Kalyanji Bhimji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom239; (1927)29BOMLR399
Kemp, J.1. The plaintiff in this case obtained a decree for specific performance of a contract -for sale of certain property to the defendants. The decree directed that the defendant-purchaser was to pay the purchase-money within a month and the plaintiff thereupon should complete the sale. It appears that there was a mortgage on the property and the delay in carrying out the decree appears to have been due to the plaintiff's efforts to obtain a reconveyance from the mortgagee. The mortgage related not only to this property but also to another property which is not the subject-matter of the suit. The defendant applied by way of motion to have the contract of sale rescinded and the decree in favour of the plaintiff's vendor vacated on account of the default of the plaintiff's vendor in not executing the conveyance. The parties do not appear to have treated the time mentioned in the decree as of the essence of the obligation to perform. Ultimately, the correspondence shows that the plain...
Sayad Daud Sayad Mahomed Vs. Mulna Mahomed Sayad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR554
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the Official Assignee in this case was a new paintiff, and the insolvent who filed his suit four days after he had been adjudicated on his own petition in Bombay was incompetent to sue After the vesting order, the whole of the insolvent's property passed to the Official Assignee by virtue of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. Consequently, nothing was left vesting in the insolvent which would give him a cause of action, It is true that an insolvent does not lose absolutely all interests in his property when he is adjudicated. He may, for instance, be able to settle with his creditors and get his property back. But the vesting order for the time being is paramount, and, even if an insolvent may eventually be entitled to what may remain as surplus after satisfying his creditors, it is perfectly clear that he cannot be allowed to take steps after he is adjudicated to recover his property. That would be ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »