Mumbai Court September 1902 Judgments
Ramji Haribhai and anr. Vs. Bai Parvati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom59
Crowe, J.1. The important question arising in this case is whether the lower Court has misconstrued Section 59 of the Transfer oi' Property Act. Both the lower Courts have relied on the ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Girindra Nath Mukerjee v. Bejoy Gopal Mukerjee (1898) 26 Cal. 246 and Abdul Karim v. Salimun (1899) 27 Cal. 190.2. Section 59 runs:Where the principal money secured is one hundred rupees or upwards, a mortgage can be effected only by a registered instrument signed by the mortgager and attested, by at least two witnesses. * * * * * *3. The mortgage-bond here sued upon is signed by the mortgagor and attested by three witnesses, and has been duly registered. The deed hag been acted upon and the mortgagees have been put in possession.4. The case of Girindra Nath Mukerjee v. Bejoy Gopal Mukerjee (1898) 26 Cal. 246 does not apply, as there the deed was not attested by two witnesses. In the case of Abdul Karim v. Salimun (1899) 27 Cal. 190 their Lordships held that the atte...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Varjivandas Alias Kalidas Bhaidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom54
Crowe, J.1. This was a rule granted to the Public Prosecutor calling on Yarjivandas alias Kalidas Bhaidas to show cause why the order passed by Mr. Binning, Acting Chief Presidency Magistrate, discharging him under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), should not be set aside and why he should not be committed to the Court of Sessions for trial on charges under Sections 471 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. Mr. Branson, who has appeared to show cause against the rule, has contended that it is not competent to this Court to set aside the order and direct the commitment of the accused either under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under tine Charter or the Charter Act, and that the prosecution is not prejudiced in any way because it is open to them to make a fresh application, the order of discharge not amounting to in acquittal. The learned Counsel drew our attention to several Calcutta cases in which, he argued, there was considerable divergenc...
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Ramchandra Deshpande Vs. Datto Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom48
L.H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiff has brought this suit for a declaration of his right as adopted son of Kondo Narayan Deshpande arid his widow Savitribai and to recover possession of the plaint lands. In the lower Court he has bean successful, and the defendant has appealed.2. The points urged before us are: first, that the adoption is not proved; secondly, that, if proved, it is invalid; and thirdly, that in any case, it is ineffective to create a title in the plaintiff to so much of the plaint lands as are vatan property. It as the third of these points alone that calls for serious discussion, for Mr. Branson has in effect) conceded (after stating the facts) that the theory of Savitribai's being under sutak (which was relied on as a circumstance both invalidating and making improbable the alleged adoption) could not be supported on the evidence, inasmuch as the relationship that would impose sutak had not been proved. On a consideration of the facts I have no hesitation in affirmin...
Tag this Judgment!Tarubai and ors. Vs. Venkatrao and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom28
Batty, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to redeem certain property by payment of such amount as on account taken might be found due from them, in respect of a mortgage executed by the widow of one Kondi Aga (the father of two of the plaintiffs and grandfather of the third) to the deceased grandfather of defendant No. 1, which possession, for Rs. 170, about thirty years before suit. The plaintiffs allege that the mortgage had been satisfied by the produce received, but defendant 1 (sic) on demand, refused to render an account on 1st March, 1897. The other defendants were joined (the plaint stated), as they had been in enjoyment on behalf of defendant 1.2. The first defendant admitted that the land had been mortgaged with possession, but alleged that the defendants 2 and 3 had been in possession since 1885 by virtue of= an agreement entered into by them with the grandfather of the first defendant. Of the other defendants, Nos. 2 and 3 denied the rights of the plaintiffs, alleging th...
Tag this Judgment!Joitaram Ramkrishna Vs. Ramkrishna Mandal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom20
Batty, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs seeks to recover possession of a certain portion of land which originally formed part of the joint ancestral property of his father (the defendant No. 1) and his father's brothers. In 1870 plaintiff's father and the Brothers of plaintiff's father separated in interest, hat the field of which the land in suit forms part was provisionally assigned for the maintenance of their mother, and therefore was not at the time partitioned. Subsequently, after the death of the mother, the plaintiff's uncles executed, as to their unpartitioned share in that field, a document in favour of the plaintiff, then an infant, purporting to be a deed of gift. The document is Exhibit 17. It is dated 15th November, 1877, and was duly registered. According to its provisions the plaintiff's mother was to be the guardian of the plaintiff for the purposes of that property. It is not alleged that the plaintiff's uncles ever themselves enjoyed personally possession of the land...
Tag this Judgment!De Silva Vs. De Silva and Devkaran Nanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom67
Chandavarkar, J.1. The first point in this case is a dry point. of law and mast, in my opinion, be disposed of in favour of the second defendant, Devkaran Nanji. It arises in this way.2. One Anna De Silva was the wife of the first defendant, John Joseph De Silva. He married her in February, 1890, and on the 24th of March, 1893, she purported to purchase the, immoveable property, which is the subject-matter of this suit, from one Valladares, for Re. 20,000. The sale-deed (Exhibit A) was executed in her name. She died on the 24th of May, 1893, leaving an infant son, who is the plaintiff in the present suit, an infant daughter, and her husband, the first defendant.3. About August, 1893, the first defendant, who had till then been cashier to Messrs. Graham & Co. for twenty-six years, was found short of moneys to a large amount belonging to the firm. Having been called upon to make good the amount, he agreed to make over to Messrs. Graham & Co. whatever property he had and made over the tit...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Babu Parab Vs. Mahadaji Moreshvar Gokhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom15
L.H. Jenkins, C.J.1. The plaintiff is the mortgagor and the defendant the mortgagee of the plaint property. The mortgage deed is dated the 25th October, 1893, and it is thereby provided that the mortgagor is not entitled to redeem after the 25th October, 1899, without paying interest to the 25th October, 1900.2. On the 12th October, 1899, the plaintiff deposited in Court the Rs. 2,000 then due on the mortgage, but the mortgagee being a minor the appointment Of a guardian ad litem for the purpose of receiving notice of the deposit was necessary. Accordingly-notice was issued to the minor mortgagee's mother, Sundrabai, with a view to obtaining-her consent to be appointed guardian ad totem of her son, and it was made returnable on the 18th of November. On that day Sundrabai appeared and was 'appointed guardian ad litem. Then a notice was issued to Sundrabai calling on her to show cause why she should not receive the deposited money, and this was made returnable on the 9bh of December. Whe...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Malgowda Basgowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom420
1. The accused in this case hag bean found guilty of having forged a valuable security and of using the same as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe that it was forged. There ware other charges preferred against the accused on which the jurors sitting as assessors expressed an opinion favourable to the accused. But we are now concerned only with the charges under Sections 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code. Mr. Branson has pointed out that there was inconsistency between the verdict of the jury as such and the opinion expressed by the same individuals as assessors. If we were to limit ourselves to an examination of the words used, and to read them in their strictest sense, there would be great force in Mr. Branson's argument. We think the explanation of this apparent inconsistency is to be found in the meaning which the assessors must have attributed to the question proposed to them in the light of the Sessions Judged direction to them on the second charge. But it is unnecessary to...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak Tukaram Naik and ors. Vs. Bhagchand and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom14
Crowe, J.1. The mortgage-bond on which this suit was brought shows that the sum of Rs. 203-2-9 was paid by the debtor up to 9th July 1884, as the payments to that amount are endorsed on the bond. It must be held, then, that the plaintiffs have condoned any default made by defendants in payment up to that date.2. The balance due on the bond is Rs. 46-13-3. The provision that on default interest at 24 per cent, should be charged from the date of the transaction is clearly of the nature of a penalty. The most the plaintiffs are entitled to is Rs. 46-13-3 plus an equivalent sum according to the principle of damdupat by way of interest.3. We amend the decree of the lower Appellate Court by ordering that defendants be allowed to redeem the mortgage on payment to plaintiffs of Rs. 93-10-5 within sis months from this date. Costa of this appeal on the plaintiffs....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›