Mumbai Court March 1929 Judgments
Bhimaji Vasudev Shivkamat Vs. Yeshvant Changagouda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR771
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff for a mandatory injunction against the defendant with reference to an encroachment of the plaintiff's easement by the defendant. The plaintiff was the owner of a house in Belgaum which had four windows, two on the ground-floor and two on the first floor in the northern wall. He alleged that those windows were ancient windows, that he had acquired an easement in respect of them by prescription for nearly forty or fifty years' user, and that the defendant purchased an open site and began building his house at a distance of six feet from the northern wall of the plaintiff's house. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff proved that he had acquired the right of easement of light and air to all the four windows, and that the erection of the building by the defendant materially interfered with the comfort and the health of the plaintiff, and that the defendant did not prove that the plaintiff acquiesced in the erection of hi...
Tag this Judgment!Subramanya Chettiyar Vs. V.P. Subrahmanya Mudaliyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR830
Salvesen, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated October 15, 1920, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which varied a judgment and decree dated December 21, 1917, of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly.2. The appellants were defendants in a suit which was raised at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent for a partition of his one-half share of certain lands situate in the village of Ayyanar kulam in the Tinnevelly district and within an estate called Chinna Pannai. By alienations and purchases which are not now disputed, the first respondent is the owner of a one-half share of the Chinna Pannai estate, and the ryotwari settlement having been made by the Government with his predecessors-in-title, he is at present ryoiwari pattadar of one-half undivided share of this estate. The earliest document of title is dated 1857 and - refers back to a state of possession in 1851, but it is probable that the settlement took place at an earlier date. Even at that time the l...
Tag this Judgment!James Richard Rennel Skinner Vs. Kunwar Naunihal Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR854
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court at Allahabad in a suit brought by Mrs. Alice Georgina Skinner against the respondent for the redemption of the villages specified in the plaint. The question that has to be determined by this Board is whether the defendant is protected by Article 134 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1908. The suit involves the dispositions of the property of the plaintiff's family which have been the subject of litigation in India on previous occasions. For the present purpose it is necessary to state the material facts in order of date. In September, 1868, Thomas Skinner, the plaintiff's father, mortgaged the villages in suit together with other property to Seth Lakshmi Chand and Seth Gobind Das for the sum of Rs. 50,000. It was a simple mortgage, with a covenant to pay the principal on December 31, 1863, and to put the mortgagees in possession if there was default in payment of principal and interest. The principal was not duly paid; but it does not ap...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnabai Vs. Varjivandas Jagjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR201
Mirza, J.1. The plaintiff as the executrix and legal representative of her husband Nanabhaoo Mahapure deceased claims from the defendants a sum of money lent and advanced by the deceased to a business firm carried on in the name of Jamnadas Brothers in which the defendants at the date of the loan were interested as partners or as members of a joint and undivided Hindu family. Defendant No. 1 has filed no written statement and relies only on the legal defence of limitation as being a bar to the suit. Defendant No. 3 is the Official Assignee, being the assignee of the estate and effects of Lambadas Jagjivandas who has been adjudicated an insolvent, He does not defend the suit. Exhibit B shows that the monetary dealings between the plaintiff's husband and the firm of Sha. Lambadas Brothers commenced on 3 February 2, 1922, when the plaintiff's deceased husband lent and advanced to the firm a sum of Bs. 600. On May 3, 1922, he advanced to the firm a further sum of Rs. 3,000 in respect of wh...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Hanmant Shrinivas Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR789
Patkar, J.1. In this case the accused were charged with offences punishable under Sections 147, 451, 342 and 426, Indian Penal Code, on the ground that on December 18, 1925, they being members of an unlawful assembly pulled down the banka of the complainant Irappa Balappa, and in pursuance of the object of pulling down the banka wrongfully confined him by pushing him into the house and pulled down the banka with the intent to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. The learned Magistrate on consideration of the whole evidence held that the prosecution case was proved. It is not necessary to go into the question whether the application for revision to this Court is beyond time. The delay has been excused and the application has been admitted on January 21, 1929.2. The first point argued in this application is that on August 7, 1926, an application was made under Section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Code for compounding the offences with which the accused were charged. The application w...
Tag this Judgment!Sultanali Mulla Rasoolji Vs. Tyeb Pir Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom210; (1930)32BOMLR188
Mirza, J.1. Mr. Desai on behalf of the defendant has tendered for being admitted into evidence two letters, each dated October 24, 1924, one being from the defendant to the plaintiff and the other from the plaintiff' to the defendant, as constituting an agreement between the parties on the faith of which the defendant constructed a shed on the land demised to him for which he now claims compensation by his counter-claim. Mr. Vachha on behalf of the plaintiff objects to these letters being admitted into evidence on the ground that they constitute) an agreement to lease an immovable property for a period of five years which, under the Indian Registration Act, is compulsorily registrable and would be inadmissible in evidence without registration.The first of these two letters, which the second letter confirmed, is in the following terms :-'Bombay, October 24, 1924. To,Sultanali Mulla Rasoolji, Esqr. Dear Sir,I beg to note that I have agreed to take a lease from you of the vacant land lyin...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Ramjee Jadhav Vs. Dattatraya Ramkrishna Advilkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR765
Patkar, J.1. In this casa the property in suit originally belonged to Bala Bapu and Krishna Mahadu. By their deeds on April 3, 1864, June 7, 1864, and June 23, 1867, they mortgaged the property to one Bhiku Sonar. On March 1, 1921. the plaintiff purchased from the heirs of the mortgagors their equity of redemption, and brought suit No. 1060 of 1921 for redemption against the mortgagees to which defendants Nos. 1 and 4 were made parties. They contended that they were the Inamdars of the village, and had also the mirasi right, but as the title which they set up was paramount both to the mortgagor and the mortgagee, their names were struck off in the redemption suit. The plaintiff' however obtained a redemption decree on July 15, 1922, and got possession on November 30, 1922. Defendants Nos. 1 and 4 made two applications, Exhibits 111 and 120, under Order XXI, Rule 100, and were successful in their applications, and possession was handed over to them on April [1], 1923. The present suit w...
Tag this Judgment!Lal Narsingh Partan Bahadur Singh Vs. Mahommad Yakub Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR825
Tomlin, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in the suit from a decree dated October 26, 1926, of the Chief Court of Oudh which varied a decree dated August 13, 1925, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Rae Bareli.2. On April 8, 1923, a mortgage, which was duly registered, was executed by the first two defendants in favour of the third defendant to secure an advance of Rs. 30,000 carrying interest at rate of five annas and one pie per cent, per month.3. By Clause 2 of this mortgage it was stated that an eight annas share in certain villages bad been hypothecated in lieu of the principal mortgage money and interest and in order to pay the Lord Tomlin annual interest on the mortgage money possession over the hypothecated property had been delivered to the mortgagee, who, after paying the revenue, should appropriate the surplus profits to the extent of the annual interest.4. By Clause 3 the mortgage money was promised to be repaid within thirty-five years and at the stipulated tim...
Tag this Judgment!Raja of Pittapur Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR866
Tomlin, J.1. The appellant in this case who is the plaintiff in the suit, and will be hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, is appealing against a decree dated March 81, 1925, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby the plaintiff's suit was dismissed and the plaintiff was ordered to pay certain costs.2. The plaintiff as successor in title of his father holds twenty seven villages, formerly part of an estate known as the Totapalli estate situate in the Godaveri District in the Northern Circars of Madras. These villages were purchased in 1879 by the plaintiff's father from the then holder and Mansabdar of the Tofcapalli estate.3. In the years 1913 and 1915 the Tahasildar of Peddapur collected from tenants of the plaintiff in two of the twenty-seven villages royalties or penalties for the removal of gravel and stone from hills within the boundaries of such two villages. He did be on the footing that the underground rights in the villages belonged to the Government.4. Thereup...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Sunder Lal Vs. Lachmi Narain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR803
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in the suit against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated July 6, 1926, whereby a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ghazipur, dated April 7, 1923, was modified.2. The suit was brought on March 2, 1922, by the plaintiffs, the minor sons of one Sat Narain Pande, who died in 1915, by their mother, Musammat Narain Kunwar, their certificated guardian, against the defendants, to recover possession of the property specified in the plaint, viz., Mauza Kanauli and Mauza Sikandra, and for a declaration that a certain sale deed dated July 21, 1908, purporting to have been executed by Sat Narain Pande, the father of the plaintiffs, in favour of one Misri Lai, the ancestor of the defendants, was invalid.3. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that their father was a notorious debauchee and had squandered the joint family property in meeting the expenses of his debauchery and immoral habits; that the above-mentioned sal...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »