Mumbai Court September 1926 Judgments
isa Adam Vs. Bai Mariam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR304; 101Ind.Cas.385
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. In this suit the real point in dispute between the parties is as to the true effect of the Meher sale-deed of July 20, 1918, Exhibit 21. The suit is brought by the plaintiff against her father-in-law, her mother-in-law and her husband, to recover possession of the property comprised in the sale-deed. The defence is that, by a custom of the Ghanchi community of Godhra to which the parties belong, this Meher sale-deed, although some of its terms may purport to amount to an absolute conveyance, in fact, is only held a security for the dower payable to the plaintiff in two events, neither of which has happened, viz., in the event of her being divorced, and in the event of the death of her husband.2. There were, accordingly, two preliminary issues raised : '(1) What is the market value of the property in question ?' That has been found by the learned Judge to be Rs. 10,000, whereas the amount of the dower as stated in Exhibit 20 was Rs. 4,500. Then the second pr...
Tag this Judgment!Edith Walsh Vs. Edward Walsh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom230; (1927)29BOMLR308; 101Ind.Cas.388
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is one of those unfortunate cases which begins with a blunder, and continues to run a crooked course. When the case was last before us, we sent it down for a remand, first, on an issue as to domicile, and, secondly, on an issue whether the parties reside or last resided together within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869, so as to give jurisdiction to the District Court at Poona. This was because neither of these essential points had been determined by the Court at the previous hearing of the case.2. Mr. Lawrence, the present District Judge, has now heard further evidence on these two issues. As regards the first issue, viz., that of domicile, we agree with him that the domicile of the parties is shown to have been Indian at the date of the petition. As regards the second issue, the learned Judge has found that the parties last resided together at Kirkee within the meaning of Section 3. But when the evidence is looked into, it will ...
Tag this Judgment!Swamirao Konher Nadgir Vs. Channappa Uppina Hubli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom237; (1927)29BOMLR301; 101Ind.Cas.398
Shah, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case sued the defendants for the amount due to them in respect of transactions which had been effected between them and defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from February 15, 1918, to December 26, 1919. It appears that soon after the transactions between the parties there was a reference to arbitration. That reference was signed by defendant No. 1 Swamirao and the plaintiffs. The arbitrators provided in their award that the amount of Rs. 18,623-1-3 was the balance due by Swamirao to the plaintiffs on December 26, 1919; but they allowed remission as regards the excess over Rs. 15,000, and provided that Rs. 4,000 should be paid by a certain date, and that the present defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 should convey the family property to be enjoyed by the plaintiffs for ten years and that the debt should be treated as satisfied at the end of that period. If they did not act according to the award, the whole sum claimed was to be payable by Swamirao. It appears that the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Durgadutt Nathmal Vs. Bholaram Jasraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR409
Mirza, J.1. The plaintiffs have obtained a decree in this suit, on August 24, 1926, for Rs. 19,613-15-6, costs and further interest at six per cent, against the defendant, as the legal representative of one Jesraj Morarka deceased. On August 11, 1926, the applicants, on behalf of themselves and all the other creditors of the estate of Jasraj Morarka, filed a suit No. 1932 of 1926 against the defendant as the legal representative of the deceased for the administration of the deceased's estate. By an order in that suit dated August 16, 1926, Mr. N.H. Moos has been appointed Receiver and is enjoined to take charge of the estate of the said deceased and to recover outstandings due to the estate. On September 7, 1926, Percival J. passed an administration decree in the suit which now stands referred to the Commissioner inter alia to investigate the claims of the creditors of the estate.2. On September 6, 1926, the plaintiffs made an application to me in Chambers supported by the affidavit of...
Tag this Judgment!Nilappagouda Goudappgouda Vs. Basangouda Sangangowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom244; (1927)29BOMLR299; 101Ind.Cas.348
Shah, J.1. This is an application by appellant No. 6 to withdraw from the appeal. There are other appellants Nos. 1 to 5 with whom he had joined in presenting this appeal. The application is opposed by the learned pleader for appellants Nos. 1 to 5 on the ground that under Order XXIII, Rule 1, the Court cannot allow a co-plaintiff to withdraw without the consent of the other plaintiffs. Under Sub-rule (1), however, it is open to the plaintiff against all or any of the defendants to withdraw his suit or abandon part of his claim. When the particular appellant wants to withdraw, it seems to me that it is open to him to do so. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court may make a suitable order with a view to see that by his withdrawal the other appellants are not unfairly prejudiced. But I am unable to accept the contention urged by Mr. Desai that Sub-rule (4) governs Sub-rule (1), and that without the consent of the coappellants he cannot withdraw the appeal. It seems to ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mudkaya Andanaya Hiremath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1302
Shah, J.1. The circumstances under which these two applications in revision have been made to this Court are these. In a certain murder case the learned Sessions Judge of Dharwar, who tried the case, acquitted all the accused, and, under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, made a complaint against the present applicants and others charging them with offences punishable under Section 194, Indian Penal Code, An offence under Section 194, Indian Penal Code, is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The First Class Magistrate, who dealt with the complaint, recorded the evidence and ultimately discharged both the present petitioners by separate orders on October 19,1925, under Section 209, Criminal Procedure Code, Narsapaya Sankapaya Deshpande, one of the persons acquitted in the original murder case, made applications to the Sessions Judge of Dharwar under Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, to revise these orders. The learned Sessions Judge, Mr, Ferrers, who had filed a complaint ...
Tag this Judgment!Yemnava Shidramappa Anchali Vs. Revanshiddappa Mallappa Byakod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR297; 101Ind.Cas.351
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The first point in this suit is whether the document, Exhibit 71, requires registration. The Subordinate Judge decided that it did not inasmuch as it was an award. The appellate Court decided that it was not an award but an agreement. The actual result, however, was the same in both Courts, because the lower appellate Court found on an alternative point in favour of the present respondents. This alternative point at any rate as regards a part of it did not form the basis of the judgment in the trial Court.2. On a careful consideration of the document in question, and the evidence to which the lower appellate Court has drawn our attention, we think that Exhibit 71 was an award. It is so described, in the heading, viz., an award made by the Panchas. It then proceeds to give specific directions as to what is to be done, viz., that certain lands are to go to the two daughters and certain other lands are to go to the daughters-in-law. In this respect we have loo...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Abdulla Hasani Vs. Abdul Gafur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom449; (1927)29BOMLR673
Mirza, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the above facts proceeded as follows:-] The Taxing Master so far has taxed the bill of the plaintiff only and not of the defendants. He states, in his reasons that he has followed the principle laid down by Fry J. in Saner v. Bilton (1879) 11 Ch. D. 416 The Plaintiff in the original action shall pay the general coats of action, and the Defendant, who is to pay the costs of the counter-claim, shall only pay the costs of the proceedings so far as they have been increased by reason of that counter-claim.2. Applying the converse of that principle to the present case he has disallowed the plaintiff the costs incurred in the de bene esse examination of a pearl broker, who gave evidence on behalf of the defendants with regard to the market-rate prevailing on December 16, 1921, and the decline in the pearl market after that date. The Taxing Master had originally allowed this item in the taxation of the plaintiff's bill of costs as against the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!V.R. Naik Vs. Balvant Sitaram Mahindre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom135; (1927)29BOMLR138
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Sir Norman Macleod restraining the defendant from proceeding with the suit No. 45 of 1335 Fasli year filed by him against the plaintiff in the Court at Nandod in the Dominions of His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad pending the hearing and final disposal of this Bombay suit.2. The appeal raises questions of some importance and difficulty, first, as to the jurisdiction of the learned Judge to make an order of that nature and, secondly, whether the jurisdiction was properly exercised on the materials before him. Unfortunately we have no judgment of the learned Judge and no personal notes of his. We are informed by counsel that the case was heard in the learned Judge's private room, and that, accordingly, it was impracticable for counsel to take notes of the judgment. However that may be, we regret that we are without the assistance which we should normally get and which we should particularly value in the present case.3. S...
Tag this Judgment!Yesu Sakharam Pujari Vs. Ladu Nana Savant Bhosale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom251; (1927)29BOMLR291; 101Ind.Cas.330
Shah, J.1. The second appeal No. 616 of 1925 arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants complaining of the defendants having put up a certain dam in the stream called Redekond stream at the points A.B. The new dharan A B complained of is shown on the plan. The defendants apparently put up a dharan at A B and tried to divert water through the artificial channel in the south of the stream which is marked BCD E F G H I J. The plaintiffs apparently divert water from this natural stream at the dam L M which is lower down in this stream, and from the point M they take the water through an artificial channel which branches off in the north of the stream. It runs eastward and joins another channel called 'Khulyachi Vali' in the north and then turns southward again towards the lands of the plaintiffs in that direction.2. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' right to prevent them from putting up the dam A B, which they said was old, and they also claimed the right to ha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »