Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom70
West, J.1. The Assistant Judge has held the mortgagee in possession in this case not responsible for the land revenue of the fields held by him under the mortgage. The plaintiff, as Kabulayatdar Khot, is recognized by the Assistant Judge as entitled to demand from Dharekaris the amount of assessment on their dhara; but Lakshmibai, the mortgagor, being owner of the dhara in question, and, therefore, occupant according to the Bombay Survey Act I of 1865, the Assistant Judge has held that she, and she alone, is responsible for the assessment. That she is responsible for it, is true; but it does not follow that she is solely responsible, and Regulation XVII of 1827, Section 5, enables the Government, and, therefore, the holder of the rights of Government, on failure of the superior holder to pay the revenue, to realize it from the inferior holder, a position which, in the sense of the Regulation, is held in this case by the mortgagee.2. It is obvious that, if the occupant only could be mad...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom52
Charles Sargent, J.1. This matter comes before us on a case stated for the opinion of the High Court under Section 35 of Act IX of 1850, and arising out of an action brought by the plaintiff in the Small Causes Court, to recover from the defendants the sum of Rs. 200 as damages for the forcible and illegal removal of the plaintiff from one of the defendants' carriages at Dhandu station, and for illegal detention at the aforesaid station, and for illegal refusal of the defendants to allow the plaintiff to proceed in the train to Bombay. At the hearing of the cause, the Fourth Judge of the Court was of opinion that the defendants had committed the several illegal acts with which they were charged, and passed judgment for the plaintiff' for the full amount of his claim and costs. A rule nisi was obtained by the defendants for a new trial, and came on for argument before the First and Fourth Judges of the Court, who were divided in their opinion,--the First Judge being of opinion that ther...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom50
1. We do not think the conviction of dacoity can be sustained. That was a substantive offence completed as soon as perpetrated at Velanpor, although, had Velanpor been in British territory, the subsequent acts in the process of taking away the property might, in the legal sense as they would have the same legal character, have coalesced with the first and principal one so as to give jurisdiction under Section 67 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But we think the conviction may be altered to one of retaining stolen property known to have been obtained by dacoity (Indian Penal Code, Section 412), and the sentences upheld. The retaining is included in the more comprehensive charge viewed as an abstract accusation of an act attended with a certain intent or consciousness, and the conception of dacoity being independent of the place where it was committed suffices to cover what is embraced within it, though the latter was an act done in British territory. The retaining was in British terri...
Tag this Judgment!