Mumbai Court October 1906 Judgments
Kisandas Rupchand Vs. Rangubai Nanchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR382
Beaman, J.1. There were four brothers constituting a joint family. The only piece of joint ancestral estate was the old family house. Three of the brothers remained in their native village, formed a partnership and traded there. The fourth Nanchand went to Ahmednagar and working first as a servant, ended by being taken into partnership in a business there. Nanchand married while away from the rest of the family, finally fell sick, returned home and presently died. That was in 1894. His widow stayed with the other three brothers in the family house. It seems to be conceded that there never had been any separation, although this was the original plea in the first Court, or that if the mere departure of Nanchand to seek his livelihood could be so regarded, there was a complete reunion on his return.2. The local trading concern had been carried on by the three brothers who survived Nanchand. In our understanding of the case, Nanchand had no lot or part in it or its fortunes, at any rate be...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Virchand Vs. the Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR904
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. The question referred to the Pull Bench by the order of Reference dated the 1st October 1906 is whether Mamlatdars empowered by the Mamlatdars' Act can entertain and decide suits to which the Collector is a party.2. Two points were propounded to us by the Advocate General before the Pull Bench.3. We state them in the reverse order to that in which he argued them.4. The first point, therefore, may be stated as follows, viz., that looking at the history of the Mamlatdars' Courts it could not have been intended that a suit against the Collector would lie therein. The second point was whether the prerogative of the Crown whereby in England the Crown cannot be sued in Civil Courts applies to India so as to preclude the present suit being entertained.5. Before we deal with these points however we would wish to state very shortly the nature of the plaintiff's claim.6. The suit was filed in the Court of the Mamlatdar of the Daskroi Taluka in Ahmedabad by the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Nahanchand Devchand Vs. Kekhushru Edalji Modi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR50
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from obstructing him in the enjoyment of the nineteen mango trees and one jambul tree specified in the plaint and preventing him from entering; the land in which the trees are situated and taking the produce of the trees and having the same watched every year; also to recover Rs. 30 as compensation for the loss of profits for the year 1903.2. The facts shortly stated are as follows:Survey No. 248 at Mandwa stands in the names of Kesurdas. Karsan, Haribhai Naran, Baji Bhikha and Bhaiji Ota, who were Bhagdars; but it had been in the possession and enjoyment of one Khushal Bhikha as permanent tenant, paying the Govern-ment assessment and since his death is in the possession and enjoyment of his heirs. Khushal Bhikha had planted mango and jambul trees in the land and was in possession and enjoymen t of them. In 1873 Khushal mortgaged twelve of the mango trees to the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Magania Vs. Premsingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR856
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. In this case we are asked to make absolute the decree nisi for divorce which was passed by the lower Court.2. The circumstances of the case are certainly very peculiar.3. The petitioner is a Hindu lady belonging to the sweeper, caste and she married according to the Hindu rites and according to the custom of the caste a gentleman of the name of Premsingh (son of Nanhu Mehtar) who was also a sweeper.4. Apparently they became man and wife according to the custom of their caste.5. Sometime afterwards, according to the evidence, they both embraced the Christian religion and after that the husband became enamoured of his deceased brother's widow and went through the form of marriage with her and lived with her as her husband having previously repudiated his conversion to Christianity.6. Under these circumstances we are asked to make the decree nisi, which has been passed, absolute for the dissolution of this marriage.7. But we are of opinion that it would be ...
Tag this Judgment!Paulappa Ramappa Vs. Lea Hangal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR982
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. This is a petition by one Paulappabin Ramappa Kalkoti who has brought a suit in the Court of the District Judge of Dharwar against his alleged wife one Lea Habgal who is described in the record as an idiot, by her guardian, the Nazir of the District Court of Dharwar.2. The real question that we have to decide is whether or not this marriage was a marriage at all on account of the idiocy of the respondent at the time of the ceremony, in other words whether the petitioner is not entitled to have his decree- nisi made absolute upon the ground that the marriage was null and void from the beginning.3. Now in the case which is the well-known case on the point, Elliott v. Gurr (1834) 2 Phill. 16, the distinction between what marriages are void and what are voidable is pointed out, and in dealing with void marriages the Judge says, 'Civil disabilities such as prior marriage, want of age, idiocy and the like make the contract void ah initio-not merely voidable; t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Fatehkhan Bahadurkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR855
ORDER1. The Court observes that the Government Pleader who appears for the Crown has not supported the convictions Under Sections 411, 109 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code, but has asked that the convictions uuder Sections 457 and 511 should be maintained. The Court accordingly sets aside the convictions under Sections 411, 109 and 143 of the Indian Penal Code, and reduces the aggregate sentence of sixteen months rigorous imprisonment passed upon the accused to one of one year's rigorous imprisonment.2. The Court at the same time wishes to call the attention of the Magistrate to the Full Bench decision in Queen-Empress v. Malu ILR (1894) 17 Mad. 235 and the provisions of Section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898....
Tag this Judgment!Shivram Kondo Kulkarni Vs. Krishnabai Kashinath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR897
Aston, J.1. The present respondent-plaintiff sued in the character of an adopted son for redemption of a mortgage.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, because the fact of the plaintiff's adoption had been disputed more than six years before the date of the suit and in the opinion of the Subordinate Judge Article 119 was applicable, and a suit for declaration contemplated in that Article ought to have been brought within six years of the date when the plaintiffs rights were interfered with as adopted son.3. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree and remanded the case for a fresh decision, because it was of opinion, that the plaintiffs age was 2 1/2 years at the date when the application was made to the District Court for the appointment of a guardian to administer his estate and the plaintiff did not attain majority till he was twenty-one years of age if a guardian of his property or person was appointed.4. The question of limitation only arises however in the form ...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Vithoba Vs. Nainsukh Rajmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR942
Heaton, J.1. I concur that the order of the lower appellate Court should be confirmed with costs, because the lower appellate Court in the exercise of the discretion vested in it by Section 32, Civil Procedure Code; added the appellant as defendant No. 6, and, in the particular circumstances of the case, I do not think that it exercised its discretion wrongly. I think it desirable to say a few words on a point of limitation, which was argued in this case.2. The plaintiff brought the suit within the period allowed by Article 11, Schedule II of the Limitation Act, and so far he did what was required of him. He also brought this suit originally against the persons who were parties to those proceedings under Section 278, Civil Procedure Code, in which his rights had been successfully questioned. Subsequently however he added as defendant the auction purchaser who had not been a party to the proceedings under Section 278, Civil Procedure Code.3. The Court of first instance apparently though...
Tag this Judgment!Dayaram Jagjivan Vs. Gordhandas Dayaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR885
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. Before discussing the somewhat difficult question of law herein it is necessary to give an outline of the material facts.2. This is an appeal from the order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana, whereby he directed the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court inasmuch as the lands in question were not of the value of Rs. 5,000 and therefore his Court at Thana had no jurisdiction to try the suit.3. The plaintiff Dayaram Jagjivan sued the three defendants (1) Goverdhandas Dayaram, (2) Damodar Vithoba and (3) Chin' taman Bhagwan for the relief hereinafter set forth. Defendant. I had got a decree No. 17,520 of 1900 in the Bombay Small Causes Court against the Bombay firm of Moti Jagjiwan and Co. for a certain sum. In execution of that decree which was transferred to the Second Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Dahanu the said defendant caused the lands in question to be attached. They are situate at Kanadu near Ka...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamad AmIn Vs. Husan Mahamad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR65
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. Plaintiff herein one Mahamad Amin son of Mahamad Ibrahim filed a suit against his brother Hasan, the first defendant, the second defendant, wife of the first defendant and the third defendant the wife of a deceased brother of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, named Kamal, to recover possession of a house and grounds in the plaint described. The said house and land belonged to the father of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and the deceased Kamal.2. The plaintiff's case was that by a registered sale-deed in the year 1885 he purchased the property from his father. In 1886 certain mortgagees filed a suit against the plaintiff and his said father and mother on a mortgage bond executed by the father. The Court of first instance as also the District Court, held that sale to be a sham transaction and there is no doubt that the plaintiff herein paid off that mortgage deed. The father died in 1888. The first Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »