Mumbai Court April 1877 Judgments
Reg Vs. Balapa BIn Dundapa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom639
Melvill, J.1. It seems impossible, therefore, to bring the acts of the prisoners within the definition of murder. What we consider to be proved is this, viz., that prisoners, Nos. 1 and 2, went to the prostitute's house, armed with sticks, intending to beat the deceased; and that prisoner No. 1 caused the death of the deceased, by striking a blow which was likely to cause death, but was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Under these circumstances, prisoner No. 1 was guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and having regard to the provisions of Section 111 of the Indian Penal Code, we consider that prisoner No. 2 was equally guilty of that offence.2. Unfortunately, this Court, as a Court of Reference, does not appear to have power, under Section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to alter a conviction of murder into one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but only to order a new trial. In referred cases there is gene...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagvan Dullabh Vs. Kala Shankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom641
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. The plaintiff Bhagvan Dullabh brought this suit to recover certain immoveable property belonging to his deceased brother, Ranchhod.2. The defendant, Kala Shankar, who is his sister's son, alleged in his written statement that the plaintiff and the deceased Ranchhod were divided in estate; that from his childhood he had lived with his deceased uncle as his son; and that the deceased had made him owner of his estate. He accordingly contended that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover from him the property sued for.3. It is not alleged that there is any nearer relative of the deceased than the plaintiff. The question, therefore, simply is, which of the two is entitled to the property in preference to the other. It is found that the plaintiff and the deceased were divided in estate; and it is also found that the defendant 'from his childhood always lived with the deceased, and seems always to have been treated and recognized and acknowledged by him and even by ot...
Tag this Judgment!Jamal Walad Ahmed Vs. Jamal Walad Jallal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom633
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. This suit is brought for a declaration of the right of the plaintiff to be Kazi of the taluka of Havri in Dharwad, and to recover certain fees appertaining to that office received by the first defendant from the second and third defendants, and to restrain the first defendant from disturbing the plaintiff in that office.2. The plaintiff claims under sanads of 1049 Hijri A.D.1639, and 1074 Hijri A.D. 1663, purporting to be granted by the Bijapur Government to persons whom he alleges to have been his ancestors. Those sanads rather treat the grantees as Kazis already than assume to create them Kazis, and confer land and other benefits upon them in respect of a musjid established, or to be established by them, and for light/ing the same, anchor the reading of prayers and sacred books, as well as performing the usual duties of Kazis, and would appear to contemplate the maintenance of the musjid and the reading of prayers, and performance of the duties of Kazis, as w...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Thana Vs. Bal Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom110
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaintiff (respondent) alleges himself to be a Villager of Veluk in the district of Thana, and in virtue thereof by his plaint prays that it may be declared (inter alia), not only that he has a right to graze his cattle within the limits of Mouje Veluk but also within the limits of any other village of the district of Thana. The claim to graze his cattle in villages other than Veluk, is, on the very face of it, preposterous, and on scrutinizing his claim to graze his cattle in the village grazing ground of Veluk, we perceive that it is quite as ill-founded as his alleged right so to utilize the grazing commons in the other villages of the district of Thana. It is admitted that he is not the owner of a single square foot of ground in the village of Veluk, but it appears that he had erected a hut on public ground belonging to that village, where he sojourns for a few months while his cattle are engaged in exhausting the grass set apart for the real villagers....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›