Mumbai Court June 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.
Saiyid Jowad HussaIn Vs. Gendan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1395
Visoount Dunedin, J. 1. In this case the plaintiffs were mortgagees under a registered mortgage bond granted by the defendant. They raised action for the sum of Rs, 52,000 odd, said to be due under the mortgage. The defendant denied that the whole sum was due, as he said the plaintiffs had not given him credit for two sums of Rs. 11,000 odd and Rs. 8,000 odd, which he had paid, such payments having originally been endorsed on the bond, but the endorsations having been erased by the plaintiffs.2. The Subordinate Judge gave effect to this contention, but made the ordinary preliminary decree for the sum of Rs. 19,000, being the sum due, with proper computation of interest, after allowing credit for the above-mentioned two sums. The date of this decree was February 22, 1915. The six months of grace for payment would, therefore, expire on August 22, 1915. The mortgagees appealed against the decree. The appeal was heard, and the appeal dismissed on May 21, 1917.3. On February 21, 1919, appli...
Maharaj Bhanudas Narayanboa Gosavi Vs. Krishnabai Chintaman Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom11
Fawcett, J.1. The main question in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff has proved that he attained majority within three years of his filing the present suit,. that is to say, on or after July 18, 1918....This involves his birth on or after July 18, 1900. But the Subordinate Judge has held that he was really born on October 20,1899, and, therefore, his suit was time-barred.2. In regard to the evidence as to the plaintiff's age, it has been strongly contended that the document marked A, on which the lower Court has mainly relied, is not admissible in evidence. This is a document purporting to be a certified copy of what is called a ' transfer certificate ' granted by the Head Master of a school at Paithan in the Hyderabad. State, on January 20, 1916. The document purports to be a copy of a counterfoil, showing the contents of the transfer certificate actually issued, and. the copy is made on a printed form, which would presumably correspond to that of the original. According to an ent...
Harkisandas Bhagvandas Vs. Bai Dhanu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR954
Madgavkar, J.1. The answers of the Full Bench to the reference have been given, and we have now to apply the law as laid down by the Full Bench to the facts. The law, as I understand it has now been left by the decision of the Full Bench, is as follows: The case is one of a registered sale deed with an unregistered agreement giving the vendor an option to re-purchase. The Full Bench has now decided that, if the transaction which assumes this form above is really one of mortgage, then the second deed is inadmissible for want of registration, the opposite view taken in Sayad Mir Gazi v. Miya Ali I.L.R. (1914) 38 Bom. 703 being overruled, and the view in Bala v. Sadashiv : (1921)23BOMLR1066 being affirmed in the cases where the transaction is one of mortgage.2. Where, however, the transaction is not one of mortgage, then the second document, it is held, does not need registration, even if it is a part of the same transaction as the sale; in other words, even if it is an essential conditio...
Birdichand Dhondiram Marwadi Vs. Badesaheb Bahamiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1322
Fawoett, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the present darkhast filed by the plaintiffdecree holder-appellant is barred by limitation as both the lower Courts have held. The decree in question was obtained by the appellant against the widow and children of one Baba Miya deceased and was passed against them, with the limitation that the decretal amount should only be recoverable from the estate of the deceased Baba Miya in the hands of the defendants On June 4, 1923, the appellant brought a darkhast No. 454. of 1923, which was rejected on the ground that an inventory under Order XXI, Rule 12, was necessary and was not annexed to the darkhast application, Both the lower Courts have held that the darkhast of 1923 was, in the absence of such an inventory, not in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 182 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, and that the present darkhast was, therefore, barred by limitation,2. The decree in question, however, fell under Section ...
Harkisandas Bhagvandas and ors. Vs. Bai Dhanu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom497
Fawcett. J.1. The main question in this appeal is whether the lower Courts have erred in holding that the document, Exhibit 39, is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The sale-deed, Exhibit 38, was passed on the same day, November 1, 1898, and both documents were written by the same writer, Nathabhai Jayachand, One of the attesting witnesses to Exhibit 38, Rajaram Narbheram, signed Exhibit 39 for the executant, Bai Jivi. It, therefore, seems clear that the two documents evidence one transaction, and that the second document; Exhibit 39, was not an independent transaction arranged, as an afterthought, subsequent to the execution of Exhibit 38. The plaintiffs also treated the two documents as one transaction by their allegation that they evidenced a mortgage. The lower Court's view that Exhibit 39 cannot be treated as a separate document entirely apart from the sale-deed, Exhibit 38, is, in my opinion, clearly correct.2. Also I agree with the view of both the lower Courts ...
Emperor Vs. Khushal Jeram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1026
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the applicant has been convicted of having indecently assaulted the complainant, Bai Manki, under Section 354, Indian Penal Code. That conviction has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge.2. The only legal point that is raised is that the Magistrate inspected the scene of offence and failed to make a record of any relevant facts that he observed at that inspection under Section 589-B, Criminal Procedure Code. It is argued that that constituted an illegality vitiating the whole trial, and the ruling in Hriday Govinda Sur v. Emperor I.L.R. (1924) Cal. 148 is cited in support of that contention. Another Bench of the same Court has, however, subsequently taken the contrary view that such an omission is not an illegality: Forbes v. Ali Haidar Khan I.L.R. (1925) Cal. 46. We agree with the latter view, and especially with the observation of Ghose J. that there is no universal rule that disobedience of a mandatory provision in a statute has the consequence of nullific...
Khushal Jeram Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1926
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.671
1. In this case the applicant has been convicted of having indecently assaulted the complainant, Bai Manki, under Section 354, Indian Penal Code. That conviction has been confirmed by the Sessions Judge.2. The only legal point that is raised, is that the Magistrate inspected the scene of offence and failed to make a record of any relevant facts that he observed at that inspection under Section 539 B, Cr P.C. It is argued that that constituted an illegality vitiating the whole trial, and the ruling in Hriday Govinda Sur v. Emperor : AIR1924Cal1035 is cited in support of that contention. Another Bench of the same Court has, however, subsequently taken the contrary view that such an omission is not an illegality: Forbes v. Muhammad Ali Haidar Khan : AIR1925Cal1246 . We agree with the latter view, and especially with the observation of Ghose, J., that there is no universal rule that disobedience of a mandatory provision in a Statute has the consequence of nullification of all proceedings, ...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Indoorai Bhaurai Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1308
Fawcett, J.1. This litigation arises out of certain allowances that for many years were paid by the Inamdar plaintiffs for the benefit of certain religious institutions and ceremonies, and for food and liquor to villagers on special occasions. The allowances are in six Inam villages in the Fanch Mahals District. Three out of these, by name Ranipur, Pavdi, and Jetpur, are the subject-matter of the suit which is before us in First Appeal No. 44 of 1924 The fourth village is that of Earamba, which is the subject-matter of the suitin F.A. No. 43 of 1924. The other two villages are Sompoi and Frathampur, which are the subject-matter of the suit in F.A. No. 45 of 1924. All these three suits, which were heard by the Joint Judge, Ahmedabad, involve the same questions, and our decision can be given in regard to all these appeals in one judgment.2. The main facts are that these allowances were directly paid by the Inamdars in question, but that in 1897 the Government passed a resolution, orderin...
Secretary of State Vs. Indoorai Bhaurai Desai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom40
Fawcett, J.1. This litigation arises out of certain allowances that for many years were paid by the inamdar plaintiffs for the benefit of certain religious institutions and ceremonies, and for food and liquor to villagers on special occasions. The allowances are in six inam villages in the Panch Mahals district. Three out of these, by name Ranipur, Pavdi, and Jetpur, are the subject-matter of the suit, which is before us in First Appeal No, 44 of 1924. The fourth village is that of Karamba, which is the subject-matter of the suit in R.A. No. 43 of 1924. The other two villages are Sompoi and Prathampur, which are the subject-matter of the suit in F.A. No. 45 of 1924. All these three suits, which were heard by the Joint Judge, Ahmedabad, involve the same questions, and our decision can be given in regard to all these appeals in one judgment.2. The main facts are that these allowances were directly paid by the inamdars in question, but that in 1897 the Government passed a resolution, orde...
Basaya Nurndaya Dhandvati Vs. Murgaya Somaya Jangin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1184
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. Two points have been urged in support of this appeal. The first point is that the meeting of the Municipality convened by the Chief Officer for November 12, 1923, for the election of the President, Vice-President, and other officebearers, was illegal, as already a meeting convened by that Officer, on October 31, 1923, for a similar purpose was adjourned sine die. The second point urged is that after the election of the President, the Chairman, who was elected to preside at the Meeting of November 12 in the beginning, ought to have vacated the chair, and the proceedings of the meeting should have been continued under the presidentship of the newly elected President. It is urged that, as this was not done, and as the proceedings were continued under the Chairmanship of the Chairman elected at the beginning of the meeting, who also happened to be elected as Vice-President at that meeting, the proceedings of that meeting are vitiated.2. As regards the fir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »