Mumbai Court July 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.
Niladri Sahu Vs. Mahant Chaturbhuj Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1418
Atkinson, J. 1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated March 17, 1923, dismissing an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttaak, dated February 28, 1922, who in a suit for sale on a mortgage had passed a money decree only against defendant No. 1, but had, in other respects, dismissed the plaintiff's claim.2. The defendant, the mortgagor, is the Mahant of the Muth of a Thakur or deity of the Vaishnavitea called Sri Jagannath Mahaprobhu at a place called Puri. It includes a temple with idols in it. The defendant, with, as it is alleged, the view of increasing the income of the Muth, built as an addition to it a lodging house, where Rajahs and other rich devotees visiting the Muth might obtain during their visit comfortable lodgings, and built in addition a large hall where food might be supplied to those devotees who might visit the Muth and worship at it.3. The revenue of the Muth, though sufficient to meet the ordinary expenses of ...
Manibhai Govindbhai Patel Vs. the Nadiad City Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1465
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs as rate-payers within the Municipal limits of the Nadiad city Municipality for a declaration that the order made by the officer of defendant No. 2, dated December 17, 1921, for the maintenance of primary schools within the limits of the Nadiad Municipality out of the funds belonging to defendant No. 1, i.e., the Nadiad Municipality, was illegal, and for a true and proper account of the moneys withdrawn under this order, and for refund to the Municipality of the moneys so withdrawn from the Municipal funds.2. The defendants, the Nadiad City Municipality, and the Secretary of State for India in Council, filed a written statement in which various points were raised, including the point of limitation and the contention that the order complained of by the plaintiffs was not ultra vires.3. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the various points which were raised in the lower Court. But the trial Judge has decided the su...
Manibhai Govindbhai Patel and ors. Vs. the Nadiad City Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom55
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs as rate-payers within the Municipal limits of the Nadiad City Municipality for a declaration that the order made by the officer of Defendant No 2, dated December 17, 1921, for the maintenance of primary schools within the limits of the Nadiad Municipality out of the funds belonging to Defendant No. 1, i.e., the Nadiad Municipality, was illegal, and for a true and proper account of the moneys withdrawn under this order, and for a refund to the Municipality of the moneys so withdrawn from the Municipal funds. The defendants, the Nadiad City Municipality, and the Secretary of State for India in Council, filed a written statement in which various points were raised including the point of limitation and the contention that the order complained of by the plaintiffs was not ultra vires.2. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the various points which were raised in the lower Court. But the trial Judge has decided the suit...
Narayan Kalu Chambhar Vs. Bayaji Appa Sanawane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1191
Fawcett, J.1. The Subordinate Judge of Baramati has referred to us two questions under Order XLVI, Civil ProcedureCode. The first in brief is, whether the Revenue Authorities have legal power to recover, as expenses of sale, under Rule 9 of Schedule III, Civil Procedure Code, fees on the scale which applies in the case of sales under the Land Revenue Code. The second question is whether this Court is competent to direct the Revenue Authorities to refund such charges. The Subordinate Judge refers to Government Resolutions (1) No. 7828, dated June 25, 1923, and (2) No. 4603, dated April 3, 1924, The first of these, in effect, is baaed on the view that the cost of paper, printing, postage and clerical and other labour in connection with the sales of land by the Revenue Authorities has gone up for the past years and that the fees hitherto enforced should be raised, and Government by the resolution doubled the fees previously enforced. The result is the levy of charges at the rate of 0-0-6 ...
The Collector of Satara Vs. Mahadu Raghu Kadam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1231
Fawcett, J.1. The point that has been referred to us by the Subordinate Judge is, whether, in view of Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, the immoveable property of an agriculturist can be attached and sold in execution of an order passed under Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as amended in 1928. In my opinion, the answer should be in the affirmative. Section 386, Sub-section (3), Criminal Procedure Code, only applied the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as to execution of decrees, and there is nothing in the Code itself which involves the application of Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The claim to the benefit of that section is one whichcan only be made by the judgment-debtor himself on the ground that he is an agriculturist, and it is not a claim or objection that would fall under the provisions of Order XXI, Rules 97 to 103, of the Civil Procedure Code. The argument, however, that, inasmuch as the warrant in to be deemed to be...
Ambadas Harirao Karante Vs. Vishnu Govind Boramanikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1461
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the decrees-holder applicant against the order of the Joint Second Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur, dismissing the darkhast on the ground that the decree sought to be executed was passed by a Court beyond jurisdiction, and was, therefore, a nullity. The proceedings in the original suit are not before us. But it is admitted that the suit was properly instituted in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge without objection or challenge by the opponents-defendants judgment-debtors. The parties tendered terms of compromise, and a decree was passed accordingly under Order XXIII, Rule 8, for an amount of Rs. 5,700. How this excess valuation of Rs. 700 arose, there is nothing before us to show, The Subordinate Judge in execution held, in the authorities as he understood them, that this very fact sufficed to render the decree a nullity for want of jurisdiction.3. This view is sought to be supp...
Collector of Satara Vs. Mahadu Raghu Kadam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom582
Fawcett, J.1. The point that has been referred to us by the Subordinate Judge is, whether, in view of Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, the, immovable property of an agriculturist can be attached and sold in execution of an order passed under Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as amended in 1923. In my opinion, the answer should be in the affirmative. Section 386, Sub-section, (3) Criminal Procedure Code, only applies the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as to execution of decrees, and there is nothing in the Code itself which involves the application of Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. The claim to the benefit of that section is one which can only be made by the judgment-debtor himself on the ground that he is an agriculturist, and it is not a claim or objection that would fall under the provisions of Order 21, Rules 97 to 103, of the Civil Procedure Code. The argument, however, that, inasmuch as the warrant is to be deemed to be ...
Ambadas Harirao Karante Vs. Vishnu Govind Boramanikar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom83
Madgavgar, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the decree-holder applicant against the order of the Joint Second Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur, dismissing the darkhast on the ground that the decree sought to be executed was passed by a Court beyond jurisdiction, and was, therefore, a nullity. The proceedings in the original suit are not before us. But it is admitted that the suit was properly instituted in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge without objection or challenge by the opponents-defendants judgment-debtors. The parties tendered terms of compromise, and a decree was passed accordingly under Order 23, Rule 3, for an amount of Rs. 5,700. How this excess valuation of Rs. 700 arose, there is nothing before us to show. The Subordinate Judge in execution held, on the authorities as he understood them, that this very fact sufficed to render the decree a nullify for want of jurisdiction.2. This view is sought to be supporte...
Jivangiri Guru Chamalgiri Vs. Gajanan Narayan Patkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1437
Fawcett, J.1. These are two applications for leave to appeal to the Privy Council and a third application to consolidate the two appeals. The litigation arose out of a sale-deed executed on March 2, 1897, by four persons, each of whom took a separate document by which he was given an option of re-purchase. The plaintiff was one of these four persons and he brought a suit for specific performance of the agreement evidenced by the document passed in his favour, He also brought a separate suit as heir of one of the other parties, in whose favour a similar document had been passed. The trial Judge held in the latter suit that he had not proved his heirship and therefore dismissed that suit, In the other suit a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff for specific performance. One of the main questions in the suit was whether the document sued upon was inadmissible in evidence for want of registration. The Subordinate Judge held that it was admissible in evidence. On appeal to this Cour...
Nirman Singh Vs. Lal Rudra Partab NaraIn Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1409
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated September 18, 1922, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh which reversed a, judgment and decree dated July 6, 1920, of the Subordinate Judge of Bahraich. The main question for determination on this appeal is whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge held that it is not barred, and the appellate Court took the opposite view, holding that it was barred. The pedigree of the parties showing their descent from Lalta Singh, who died in the year 1882, the relation between them, and the position they have respectively taken up in the litigation out of which this appeal has arisen, are indicated with sufficient fullness and accuracy in the pedigree as set out in the appellants' case.2. It runs as fallows :- Lalba Singh (died 1892) | |----------------------------|---------------------| | | |Lal Bahadur Singh Sher Bahadur Singh, |(died June 2, 1916) (Defendant No. 5) Nirman Singh, | | (...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »