Mumbai Court July 1927 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.
The Roal Bank of Canada Vs. Joseph Salvatori
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR760
Atkinson, J.1. [For the purposes of this report, only the following extracts are material]:-2. The instrument of guarantee is, with the exception of the last clause of it, a printed document. Before dealing with the construction of its language, it is necessary to consider the condition of things out of which it sprung, and the objects apparently designed by the parties to it to be effected by it.3. Their Lordships do not think that the language of this deed is so ambiguous as the appellants contend that it is, but if it be so then they think that the koy to its construction is that laid down by Lord Blackburn, River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson (1877) 2 App. Cas. 743. In the report he expressed himself thus (p. 763) :-.though no doubt the principles of construction of statutes laid down by this House in the present case must have an important effect on those who have to construe that or any other enactment. My Lords, it is of great importance that these principles should be ascertain...
Pranjivan Kashiram Vs. Motiram Manchharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1412
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. There are three points in this appeal. The first is as regards the marriage expenses of one party who was married after the date of the suit, and also as to marriage expenses having been allowed in anticipation of another party's marriage. Having regard to the decision of the Privy Council in Ramalinga Annavi v. Narayana Annavi , 24 Bom. L.R. 1209, it is clear that these expenses must be disallowed, viz., not only prospective marriage expenses, but also those incurred after the date of the suit and before the trial. Consequently the decisions in this Court in Jairam Nathu v. Nathu Shamji I.L.R. (1906) 31 Bom. 84, 8 Bom. L.R. 632 by Mr. Justice Scott, and Ramnath Chhoturam v. Goturam Radhakisan I.L.R. (1919) 44 Bom. 179, 21 Bom. L.R. 1179 by Sir Norman Macleod and Mr. Justice Heaton, as regards marriage expenses prior to the trial, must be treated as overruled. I may also refer to Mussammat Bholi Bai v. Dwarka Das I.L.R. (1924) 5 Lah. 375 as regards prospect...
Dada Vaku Nikam Vs. Bahiru Hingu Nikam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom627; (1927)29BOMLR1419
Crump, J.1. These two appeals are brought from the decisions of the lower Courts in two suits for redemption. In the first suit, No. 381 of 1923, the plaintiff sought to redeem 33 gunthas of land in Revision Survey No. 242. In the second suit, No 382 of 1923, he sought for redemption of the whole of Revision Survey No. 95. The decision of the Court of first instance was that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem both these properties, but as the amount, on taking the accounts under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, had been fully paid off, he could redeem without further payment. The District Judge in appeal took a different view. He held that by virtue of an arrangement made in the year 1910 the plaintiff was not entitled to redeem.2. The nature of the transactions between the parties has been fully set out by the learned District Judge. It appears (putting the matter briefly) that there was in 1896 a document which both the Courts have found to be a mortgage, though it is expres...
Alwar Naidu Vs. Kothandapani Naidu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1388
John Wallis, J.1. In this case either the plaintiffs are suing to recover a mortgage debt already discharged, or the defendants are setting up a false case of discharge, relying on the fact that the mortgage deed has come into their possession and purports to bear an endorsement of discharge by the plaintiffs' father, who had admittedly lent money to the first defendant and taken a mortgage bond in the name of his son, the second plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly found on a full consideration of the evidence that the plaintiffs' case was true and the defence totally false, while the learned Judges of the High Court held that the possession of the document bearing an endorsement of discharge threw heavily on the plaintiffs the onus of proving that the document was stolen from them and the endorsement forged, and that they had failed to discharge it. The respondents were not represented at the hearing of this appeal, and their Lordships unfortunately have not had the advan...
Sardar Gurbaksh Singh Vs. Gurdial Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1392
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree dated April 9, 1924, of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, which reversed the judgment and decree of December 1, 1919, of the Subordinate Judge at Ludhiana.2. Sardar Jawala Singh was a jaghirdar possessed of certain properties in the Ludhiana and Ferozepore districts of the Punjab. He lived in the village of Bhikki Khatra, in the Ludhiana district.3. Jawala died on August 19, 1915, leaving two widows. The elder, Harnam Kuar, was childless. The younger, Bhagwan Kuar, had borne to him a daughter, who at the date of his death was ten years old. These constituted the household.4. It is admitted that according to the law in operation in that part of the Punjab, if there had been a son in the household, he would have succeeded to the properties; but that, failing a son, and there being only a daughter, the estate would fall to a collateral malt* relative. That relative was a step-brother named Gurbakhsh Singh, who is the present...
Venkatraman Mukund Kamat Vs. Janardhan Baburao Kamat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom8; (1927)29BOMLR1522
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit by minors to set aside two deeds, Exhibits 85 and 86 of February 21, and June 25, 1921, executed by their father Mukund in favour of their cousin, Janardhan, defendant No. 1, who is a nephew of Mukund, Shortly stated these deeds are in the nature of management deeds both in the life-time of Mukund and after his death during the minority of. the minors. They also, taken together, confer a personal interest upon Janardhan, inasmuch as although he is to be under liability to account for the corpus, he is not to be liable to account for the income of the property, but is to pay certain expenses and a fixed sum as representing the balance during the minority of the minors. On Mukund's death the minors were young children, and approximately the deeds would operate for a term of some thirteen years. The points of law are whether Mukund had power thus to deal with the family property over this term of years, and in particular to make this provision a...
Harilal Ranchhod Vs. Gordhan Keshav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom611; (1927)29BOMLR1414
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. [His Lordship after stating the facts of the case, proceeded:] It is not necessary for us in the present case to define what particular circumstances must exist before a person can be described as a 'de facto guardian', or have such powers that may properly belong to a de facto guardian, But speaking for myself 1 think there must be some course of conduct in that capacity before a person can be described as a guardian de facto. I am not prepared to extend that expression to a guardian ad hoc. In other words, I am not prepared to say that a person who over many years has never intermeddled or acted as a guardian can then come forward and claim to be a guardian de facto and authorised to sell property on behalf of a minor. In the view I take such a person would be a guardian ad hoc and not a guardian de facto. Accordingly I would hold that the evidence before us was wholly insufficient to establish that Rangila was guardian de facto at the material dates, and...
ibrahim Fazalbhai Vs. Jan Mahomed Rahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1927
Reported in: AIR1927Bom648; (1927)29BOMLR1439
Madgavkar, J.1. [His Lordship after discussing the evidence, concluded as follows :] The only question which remains is the question of law, whether in this view of the facts, the premises in suit fell under Section 2, Clause (a)(ii) of the Rent Act, and whether the standard rent of these premises was Rs. 225 or whether the plaintiffs are only entitled to come in under Section 4 in respect of the amount they spent. I am of opinion that for the reasons and in the view of the law taken in Chapsey Umersey v. Keshavji Damji I.L.R. (1920) 45 Bom. 744, 23 Bom. L.R. 133 and in the unreported decision of Pratt J. in Tricumdas Gordhandas v. Narayanlal Bansilal (1925) O.C.J. Suit No. 43 of 1925 decided by Pratt J. on April 16, 1925 (Unrep.) and English cases such as Stockham v. Easton [1924] 1 K.B. 52 and Marchbank v. Campbell [1923] 1 K.B. 245, the plaintiffs are entitled to have these premises treated as new premises in respect of which the defendant had no complaint but submitted to have them...
Mukund Dharman Bhoir Vs. Balkrishna Padmanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1496
Lancelot Sandekson, J.1. This is an appeal by Mukund Dharman Bhoir, Govind M, Bhoir, Ramchandra M. Bhoir and Harichandra M. Bhoir, who were defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in the suit, against a judgment and decree of the High Court of Bombay dated October 4, 1922.2. The suit was brought by Balkrishna against the above-mentioned first four defendants, Padman, defendant No. 5, who was the plaintiff's father, Malji, defendant No. 6, the plaintiff's brother, Sowari, defendant No. 7, the sister of Padman, and other defendants, whom it is not necessary to mention in detail. Krishnaji Ramchandra Lele and Jagannath Raghunath Shet were added as defendants subsequently.3. Krishnaji had purchased from the plaintiffs, after the institution of the suit, a 20-pie share of the plaintiff's share in the property which was the subject matter of the suit. Jagannath had purchased from Padman and Malji a 40-pie share of their share in the property.4. These two defendants, Krishnaji and Jagannath, are the only resp...
Mehdi Ali Khan Vs. Ghanshiam Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1927
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR1376
Blanesburgh, J.1. The short question upon this appeal was whether the learned Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad were justified in ordering, as they did on May 28, 1923, that a written compromise of all questions in the suit as between the appellant and the two respondents should be filed and proceeded with. In making this order the High Court differed from the Subordinate Judge at Muzaffarnagar, who, on February 1, 1922, had refused to pass such a decree.2. Many questions were canvassed in the Courts in India. The issue, however, as presented to the Board, had become a narrow one, The facts on which it depends lie in a small compass.3. The respondent, Chaudhri Ghanshiam Singh, is a Hindu of position. Amongst the properties with which he had apparently dealt as his own wore two villages-Mauza Dudhli and Mauza Barsu. These he had purported to mortgage with possession to the appellant, Saiyid Mehdi Ali Khan. He had also granted a mortgage over Mauza Barsu to one Lala Gok...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »