Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR826; 57Ind.Cas.553
..... , was entitled to the property in suit after the death of defendant no. 1. admittedly the property in suit is bhagdari property and comes within the provisions of the bhagdari act.2. the trial court on the 15th october 1914 passed the following order: 'declared that the plaintiff is the nearest agnate of the deceased adam and is entitled to succeed ..... when she was only entitled to a life interest in the bhagdari property. it is quite true that nothing was said about the provisions of section 3 of the bhagdari act, and the question whether this alienation is valid or invalid under section 3 would depend upon whether- these two survey nos. constitute a recognised sub-division of a bhag. it .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR860; 57Ind.Cas.993
..... possession, it is obvious that the new landlord would be entitled to give notice, and the tenants would not be protected by section 9, clause (2) of the act. but in this case the foundation for any technical objection of that sort disappears, because the third plaintiff, who may be considered as the lessee of the premises under the ..... to whom the landlord may have leased or sold the premises. i do not think that is the proper construction to be placed upon the act. otherwise a landlord owning undeveloped property within , the limits of the city would be prevented entirely from developing his property, and providing further accommodation for the inhabitants of ..... are able to be accommodated in the present buildings.2. the defendant resisted the suit on the ground that he was protected by section 9, clause (2), of act ii of 1918. ha contended that the premises must be required by the landlord for the erection of buildings by the landlord only, and not by any third party .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR747; 57Ind.Cas.433
..... thereafter called upon to pay a special sanitary cess which the defendants claimed to be entitled to levy under section 59(b) (vi) of the bombay district municipalities act. that entitles the municipality to levy 'a special sanitary cess upon private latrines, premises or compounds cleansed by municipal agency, after notice given as hereinafter required.' then ..... objection was taken at the time to the levying of the special sanitary cess. the trial court held that the plaintiff company were not legally liable for the tax, for they had at their own expense connected their flushing privies with the municipal main drainage gutter, while the municipality did not by manual labour remove the night ..... latrines was done by the municipality, not even the branch connection, which is sometimes constructed by the municipality. when that is done the owner has to pay a tax of 8 annas a year. in the remand judgment mr. justice shah says: 'at this stage i do not desire to express any opinion on the question .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)ILR64Bom527
..... thereafter called upon to pay a special sanitary cess which the defendants claimed to be entitled to levy under section 59 (b) (vi) of the bombay district municipal act. that entitles the municipality to levy a special sanitary cess upon private latrines, premises or compounds cleansed by municipal agency, after notice given as hereinafter required'. then ..... objection was taken at the time to the levying of the special sanitary cess. the trial court held that the plaintiff company were not legally liable for the tax, for they had at their own expense connected their flushing privies with the municipal main drainage gutter, while the municipality did not by manual labour remove the ..... the sewer was not in position, as it is, then the private latrines could not be cleansed except by manual labour. it is true that by another tax the. plaintiff pays for the municipal water which carries the sewage along the connecting' pipe down to the sewer, but it cannot be said that these private latrines .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR812; 57Ind.Cas.582
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover his two-fifth share in the plaint property by partition with three years' profits Rs. 240 plus Rs. 80 for damages on account of trees cut down by the defendants. There were five brothers two of whom Mahadev and Ramehandra sold their shares to the plaintiff on the 30th April 1914 and 10th February 1917 respectively. The trial Court ordered that the plaintiff should recover two-fifth share by a fair and equitable partition and by metes and bounds, as well as Rs. 63 for past profits and at Rs. 42 per year since 1917 till delivery of possession by partition: besides Rs. 60 for damages. An appeal from this order was summarily dismissed.2. The 1st and 2nd defendants have appealed and have confined . their objections to that part of the order which directs thorn to pay Rs. 63 as past profits to the plaintiff. It is contended for the plaintiff that he stands exactly in the shoes of his Vendor, and that if he is excluded from the joint f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR817; 57Ind.Cas.573
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the property mentioned in the plaint on the ground that he was adopted by the widow of one Adgonda who died in 1911. The 1st defendant was adopted by Adgonda himself. The 2nd defendant, the elder brother of Adgonda, is sued on the ground that he was colluding with defendant 1, and had also held possession of the suit property wrongfully. The plaintiff's case depended absolutely on the question whether he could prove his title as the adopted son to Adgonda, and he contested the 1st defendant's claim to be the adopted son of Adgonda on the ground that the adoption was invalid, the adopted son being the son of Sonubai the sister of Adgonda. Both the lower Courts have considered the question of the invalidity of the 1st defendant's adoption at great length. But the real point in the case curiously enough has not been noticed by either of the lower Courts or by the parties, although one issue, namely, whether the adopti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR811; 57Ind.Cas.579
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a preliminary decree was passed against the defendant No. 5 in a mortgage suit after the case had been taken up to the High Court. As the 5th defendant failed to pay the amount mentioned in the preliminary decree, this case a preliminary decree was passed against the defendant No 5 in a mortgage suit after the case had been taken up to the High Court. As the 5th defendant failed to pay the amount mentioned in the preliminary decree, the plaintiff applied under Order XXXIV, Rule 5, for a decree absolute for sale, and a final decree was passed on the 29th June 1917. The 5th defendant then filed an appeal against that decree absolute and claimed to be allowed to file the appeal on an eight-anna stamp. The District Judge held that the Court fees must be paid ad valorem on the decretal amount. The appellant was given fifteen days within which to pay. A second appeal has now been filed against that order, and it is difficult to see on what the defenda...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR815; 57Ind.Cas.577
..... first appeal. in second appeal the result must be same. before the passing of the civil procedure code of 1908 it seems to have been doubted whether under section transfer of property act which enacted that all persons having an interest in the property comprised in a mortgage should be joined was meant to refer to parties who were not interested either in .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR819; 57Ind.Cas.598
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the plaint property. They relied in the plaint as the basis of their title on a certain will and an award. Neither of these documents was produced when the plaint was filed, as ought to have been done, under Order VII, Rule 14. The will was only produced on the 9th of February 1916, the day before the judgment was given, and the award was not produced at all. The Judge, therefore, exercising his discretion under Rule 18 did not allow the plaintiffs to produce the material documents at that stage of the case and dismissed the claim. In appeal the Assistant Judge confirmed the decree of the lower Court. I agree with the reasons which are given by the learned Subordinate Judge. Rule 14 of Order VII was enacted in order that its provisions might be complied with, and the reasons for its enactment are very clear. It is certainly desirable that a party who sues upon a certain -document should produce it at the time he f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1920)22BOMLR842; 57Ind.Cas.997
..... in the usual cases of a reference to one or two arbitrators, yet other cases are still within the scope of the act, for instance an award passed by three arbitrators could be filed and given the status of a decree under section 15. and even if the court cannot give ..... the subject matter could be, as here, the subject of a suit in a presidency town. the intention of the legislature was evidently to apply the indian arbitration act to all such cases and to leave other cases subject to the civil procedure code. although the court is only able to enforce the submission by appointing arbitrators for recalcitrant parties ..... dissolved on the 14th of november 1917.2. this is a petition by the 1st defendant partner for stay of the suit under section 19 of the indian arbitration act, 1899, on the ground that the partnership agreement included a submission to arbitration.3. the submission is in clause 12 of the agreement which is as follows: .....
Tag this Judgment!