Mumbai Court November 1928 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.
Keesara Venkatappayya Vs. Nayani Venkata Ranga Row
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR299
Phillimore, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals in two suits both brought so long ago as the year 1895, being claims to the Zamindari of Munagala in the Kistna District, They arose in the following circumstances:-2. Kodanda Ramayya, who was Zamindar, died in the year 1854. He left no son; but his mother, his widow, and a daughter by her named Latchamma survived him. She married a subject of the Nizam of Hyderabad, who died in 1875. Her husband was said to have given his wife an authority to adopt a son, and it was asserted on behalf of the present respondent, Nayani Venkata, that he had been so adopted. The Court of Wards took possession of the estate on behalf of the women, and it was enjoyed by them, not without question, until the death of Latchamma, in March 1892.3. Thereupon disputes arose, and various members of the Keesara family, who were agnates of the last male Zamindar, claimed that the estate was an ordinary Hindu estate owned by a joint Hindu family, further saying tha...
Shaikh Alli Vs. Khot Saheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR342; 122Ind.Cas.419
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the claim of the plaintiffs respondents to evict the defendants appellants is barred by limitation. The land in suit is a Khoti village' Both the lower Courts have held that the appellants are not the occupancy but Khoti tenants liable to eviction. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs respondents' suit to evict was barred by limitation by reason of the reply, Exhibit 70 dated March 31, 1909, by the appellants denying that they were annual tenants of the respondents. The lower appellate Court thought that a mere reply was not sufficient without further action on the appellants' part and decreed possession to the respondents. Defendant No. 1 deceased, by his heirs, appellants Nos. 1 to 4 appeals.2. It is argued for the appellants that the clear denial that they were the annual tenants in the reply, Exhibit 70, to the notice of the respondent was a sufficiently clear assertion of their own right to be occupancy-tenants be as to br...
Raoji Vasudeo Girap Vs. Tukaram Vishnu Kurla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR329; 117Ind.Cas.335
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is, whether the defendants-appellants are entitled to exclude the plaintiffs respondents from fishing at a certain spot on the shore at Vengurla and from using the foreshore within their limits. The defendants claimed this exclusive right by prescription and usage for over twenty-eight years. The plaintiffs denied the prescription and claimed that in any case the open sea could not be the Subject-matter of any exclusive right. Both the lower Courts upheld this contention of the plaintiffs-respondents and made a declaration accordingly. The defendants appeal.2. Whatever the possibility of private rights to the exclusion of others in tidal navigable creeks and rivers, as laid down, for instance, by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Srinath Roy v. Dinabandhu Sen or Mehta Jethalal v. Jamiatrarn Lalubhai I.L.R(1887) . 12 Bom. 225 and Viresa v. Tatayya I.L.R.(1885) Mad. 467 as regards the open sea, the view enunciated by Sir Michael Westropp ...
Hamedmiya Badamiya Saheb Vs. Joseph Benjamin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR374; 118Ind.Cas.548
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, a Mahomedan, sues to enforce his right of pre emption against the defendant, a Bene Israel. The vendors are also Mahomedans being the brothers of the plaintiff himself. The question, therefore, in this case is whether the general Mahomedan law of pre-emption can be enforced against a Mahomeden Israel, the defendant vendee in Ahmedabad. Both the lower Courts held that the plaintiff has not proved the right to pre-empt.2. The property in suit is an open land about 30 feet by 45 feet adjoining the plaintiff's land. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the right of the plaintiff to pre-empt is an incident which the custom of pre-emption attaches to the property in Ahmedabad, and the purchaser, even though a non-Mahomedan, is bound by the Mahomedan law in the matter, and cannot be permitted to evade the conditions and obligations under which the property is held, and reliance is placed on the Full Bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court in Go...
Gopalji Umersey Vs. Devji Naranji Thakkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR387; 118Ind.Cas.545
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff landlord brought a suit against the defendant for ejectment in the Court of Small Causes. The defendant was occupying a room on the second floor the rent of which was Rs. 7 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 17. The defendant contended that the suit could not be proceeded with as the plaintiff had not annexed to the plaint a copy of the order in force determining that the premises were not small premises or fixing their standard rent under Section 17 of Bombay Act VII of 1918. The plaintiff contended that structural alterations had been effected in the building in 1926 and 1927 with the result that the identity of the building was changed and the premises became new premises exempt from the operation of the Rent Act. The trial Judge was of opinion that the Controller under Section 4 had no power to determine whether the premises were old or new though he may have to do so incidentally. The question as to whether the premises were old or new w&s...
Lakshmibai Anant Kondkar Vs. Ravji Bhikaji Kondkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR400; 118Ind.Cas.700
Patkar, J.1. This is an appeal in execution of a decree obtained 1928 by the plaintiff for partition of the property described in schedules A and B and for taking accounts and one half share in the assets of the company and moveable property in the possession of defendant No. 1 and for mesne profits of the properties A and B. In the darkhast he mentioned that the partition of property in schedule A was made and plaintiff and defendant had taken possession. It appears from the receipts, Exhibits 85 and 36, that in October 1920 the plaintiff obtained possession of the property in schedule A, We are not, therefore, concerned with the immoveable property in schedule A. The second prayer is that the plaintiff should be given half share after taking accounts of plaintiff's half share in defendant's share in the property of the company, moveables, outatandings and immoveable property in schedule B. With regard to the plaintiff's share in the immoveable property, the learned First Class Subord...
Krishna Parsharam Chambhar Vs. Bhau Piraji Phalle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR331
Baker, J.1. The facts of this case are simple. The opponent No. 2 Anandibai obtained a decree against the applicant No. 1 and in execution proceedings the property of applicant No. 1 was sold and purchased by opponent No. 1. Subsequently the judgment-debtor presented an application under Order XXI, Rule 90, to the effect that the notice was not properly served upon him, he had no notice of the sale, and that he had sustained substantial injury by reason of this. The Subordinate Judge of Karad found that the decree-holder had got notice fraudulently served in an irregular and improper manner, that it was impossible for the judgment-debtor to know of the sale and that the sale was on that account vitiated by a material irregularity in publishing it and also by the fact that the correct assessment of the land was not shown in the proclamation of sale and the property was sold at a grossly inadequate price and the judgment-debtor had suffered substantial injury on that account. He, therefo...
Ragho Totaram Vs. Zaga Ekoba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR364; 118Ind.Cas.555
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, a minor, brought a suit for a declaration that the sale-deed, Exhibit 31, passed by his father Totaram to defendant No. 1 for Rs. 1,500 on November 22, 1918, was not binding on him and for possession of the property together with mesne profits.2. The property in suit situate at Shelave in the Parola Taluka originally belonged to the plaintiff's maternal grandfather Daga Ekoba. On his death his widow, the plaintiff's grandmother, inherited the property and subsequently it devolved on her daughter Vedibai the plaintiff's mother. On Vedibai's death in 1918, the plaintiff inherited it as her son. Totaram, the plaintiff's father, was managing the plaintiffs property which fetched a rent of Rs. 40 a year. The plaintiff and his father are residents of Datana in Shindkheda Taluka at some distance from Shelave. The plaintiff's father found it inconvenient to manage the property. He, therefore, sold it for Rs. 1,500 to defendant No. 1, and his house for R...
Peddi Reddi Jogi Reddi Vs. Panem Chinnabbi Reddi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR264
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Madras affirming a judgment of the temporary Subordinate Judge of Cuddapah who affirmed a judgment of the District Munaif of Proddatur, The suit is brought by the plaintiff, a member of a joint undivided Hindu family, for partition. The defendants, so far as is relevant to the present issues, are his two brothers and the appellant Jogi Reddi. The question at issue is whether certain properties are, as the plaintiff affirms, joint family properties, or, as the appellant affirms, the separate property of the appellant.2. Chinnabbi Reddi the plaintiff, Munir Roddi, and Chinnabali Reddi were brothers forming a joint Hindu family. They owned some seventeen acres of land of poor quality and were poor folk. They had a sister, Sanjamma, who married Chinnaya, a Christian. The appellant, Jogi Reddi, is the only son of the marriage. Chinnaya was in better circumstances than his wife's family. He owned twenty-four acres of land app...
Ramchandra Genugi Thosar Vs. Shripati Sukaji Gade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR357
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for specific performance of a contract of sale or in the alternative to recover Rs. 1,550 as damages. The learned Subordinate Judge, on December 22, 1923, held that the contract sued upon was for a sum of Rs. 7,000, and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to try the suit, and ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff presented the plaint in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge on January 3, 1924. The First Class Subordinate Judge called upon the plaintiff' to pay the deficit Court-fees and granted time till January 10, 1924 and on that day the plaint was rejected with costs as the deficit Court-fees were not paid. On January 23, 1924, the plaintiff, through the same pleader who had filed the plaint in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court, filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1924 against the order dated December 22, 1923, returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The District Court ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »