Mumbai Court February 1906 Judgments
Emma Agnes Smith Vs. Thomas Massey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR322
Batchelor, J.1. This originating summons was taken out for the determination of certain questions arising upon the will of one Mary Anne Houghland, a Eurasian. The facts are admitted to be as stated in the plaint, and the relation between the parties is shown in the subjoined tree : Captain Dallas = native woman. | ________________________________________ | | | Georgiana = Massey. Mary Anne | Thomas | Children2. The only questions argued are those numbered (1), (2) and (3); and they all turn upon the question whether Thomas Massey is the nephew of the testatrix, Mary Anne, within the meaning of the Indian Succession Act, which admittedly is the law applicable to the parties. The will was made only a day before the testatrix's death, so that, under Section 105 of the Act, Thomas Massey, if he is the nephew of Mary Anne, would bar bequests to religious and charitable uses. That is the claim which Thomas now prefers, but the difficulty in his way is that his mother Georgiana and Mary Ann...
Tag this Judgment!Mathuradas Damodardas and anr. Vs. Vandrawandas Sunderji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1906
Reported in: (1907)ILR31Bom222
Batchelor, J.1. After summarising the pleadings, I read the issues which are as follows:(1) Whether the transfer of the Government notes made to defendants 1 and 2 by Vajibai was on such trust as is alleged in para. 2 of the plaint?(2) Whether Vajibai became entitled to the said notes under the will of her husband Vanmalidas, or whether the said notes were investments of savings of property bequeathed to her by her husband?(3) Whether the said notes were not Vajibai's absolute property?(4) Whether the plaintiffs became entitled to the said notes on Vajibai's death?(5) Whether the plaintiffs took the said notes by virtue of the gift-over under the will of the said Vanmalidas as alleged in para. 8 of the plaint?(6) Whether the gift-over was a valid gift?(7) Can the plaintiffs take under the said gift over in view of the fact that both Kesserbai and Damodar predeceased Vajibai?(8) Whether the said notes wore not transferred to the names of defendants upon trust for Varjivan Sundarji and P...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Laxman Lele Vs. Kashinath Waman Lele
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1906
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR312
Russell, J.1. In this case the defendant was the owner of a printing press at Wai and from that press he published a paper called 'Modavritta' and he also published a supplement to that paper which consisted of a translation of a certain portion of a Sanskrit book called 'Devibhagwat' into the Marathi language. This state of things continued until the 9th January 1903. On the 9th January 1903, the plaintiff and defendant entered into two agreements,-one Ex. 11 and the other Ex. 13. These documents are evidently not drawn up by a lawyer, though judging from the arguments of the defendant before us, we certainly think that he has a certain amount of knowledge of law, which he made use of in these documents. The effect of these documents is, in the first place, that the plaintiff purchased the defendant's right in the printing press and newspaper for Rs. 3,999. Ex. 11 goes on to say that defendant is to write a certain number of articles every week for the paper and further defendant was ...
Tag this Judgment!ShamsudIn Vs. Abdul Hoosein
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR252
Chandavarkar, J.1. This suit was filed on the 1st of December 1904 by Fatmaboo, daughter of one Kallimuddin Amiruddin, deceased, to recover her share in his properties as one of his heirs. It was alleged by her in the plaint that her father had obtained from her, oh the 25th of October l895 a Gujerati writing whereby, in consideration of a sum of Rs. 9,000 which he had agreed to credit to her in his books, she had relinquished and released all her right, present and future, by way of inheritance or otherwise in all his properties, but that the said writing, having not been registered, was inadmissible in evidence against, and not binding upon, her.2. Fatmaboo having died on the 21st of April 1905, her husband (Goolam Hussein Abdulalli) and her son (Sumsuddin) were substituted as her heirs and legal representatives on the 17th of July 1905. In Suit No. 460 of 1905, brought by the first defendant against the present plaintiffs as Fatmaboo's heirs, for compelling the Registrar to register...
Tag this Judgment!Amolak Banechand Vs. Dhondi Khandu Bhosle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR360
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The defendant mortgaged a survey number to the plaintiff, and passed a Kabulayat in his favour. The plaintiff now sues the defendant for possession of the land.2. The defence is that since the mortgage and Kabulayat the land has been forfeited by the Government for non-payment of assessment in arrear ; that all prior rights in it were thereby destroyed; and that it was then leased to the defendant free from all incumbrances.3. The defence has prevailed in the lower appellate Court, from whose decree the present appeal has been preferred.4. The point is one of importance, in which the Government is interested, and on their consenting to waive all objections, we have, in accordance with their desire, added the Secretary of State as a party.5. Section 56 of the Land Revenue Code provides that arrears of land revenue due on account of land by any land-holder shall be a paramount charge on the holding and every part thereof, failure in payment of which sha...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chinia Bhika Koli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR240
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The accused in this case has been sentenced to death on what is stated to be his own plea of guilty.2. It is not in accordance with the usual practice to accept a plea of guilty in a case where the natural sequence would be a sentence of death, and so we have felt it our duty in this case to scrutinize the charge with some care to see whether the accused really understood the charge to which he pleaded.3. The charge as translated to us is in effect that the accused for the purpose of taking the ornaments of the deceased struck him on the head and thereby committed murder.4. A man may plead that he hit some one who thereby died, and that he did it for the purpose of taking away the ornaments of the person injured without necessarily admitting that he committed murder, for murder under the Penal Code requires a certain intention or a certain knowledge.5. Under these circumstances we are of opinion that it is not safe to accept the conclusion of the Sess...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavji Bhanji Vs. Ramnath Dadoba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR354
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale in which the plaintiffs are the purchasers. They allege that the agreement comprises, in addition to other pieces of property, some warkas land and a house.2. It has been held by both the Courts that the written document of sale does not in terms comprise either the warkas land or the house.3. The first Court on that ground dismissed the suit. In the lower appellate Court the point was raised by Mr.Chaubai, who appeared for the plaintiffs, that if the document did not comprise both the warkas land and the house, then that was in consequence of a mutual mistake, and he accordingly applied for leave to amend so as to include in his plaint a claim for rectification. This application was made in January 1905.4. The Judge of the lower appellate Court acceded to the application notwithstanding the protest of the defendants;and in the result he found that by mutual mistake warkas landhad been w...
Tag this Judgment!Bhau Mangesh Wagle Vs. Ahmedbhoy Habibbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR312
Russell, J.1. In this case a rule was issued by Mr. Justice Batty on the 24th December 1905, calling upon the defendants to show cause why the Mamlatdar's order should not be reversed, and the case sent back for re-trial on the merits on the ground that the facts calling for the exercise of his jurisdiction having been alleged, the Mamlatdar refused to inquire into them.2. Now the first thing to do is to consider the nature of the claim set out in the plaint. The plaintiff alleges that at a place called Kanheri, in the Than a District, there are two pieces of land belonging to him: on a piece of land towards the north he has got his house, to the south of that there is a piece of land belonging to the first defendant, and to the south of that again is a field of the plaintiff: and the plaintiff says that for a considerable period of time, for many years, up till the 29th of April last, that is, 1905, he was in the habit of going to and fro through the piece of land belonging to the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Nilawa Bharma Bashya Vs. Krishnappa Huwappa Maistri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR350
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The question that arises on this appeal is whether the mortgagee is entitled to add to the mortgage money the amount paid by him by way of assessment.2. Now it is clear that apart from special stipulation a mortgagee is under no liability to pay assessment as between himself and his mortgagor; and if he does pay it for the purpose of preserving his security, then he is ordinarily entitled to add that amount to his mortgage money, and to require that he should be paid it before he can be redeemed.3. Here however we have a specific provision in the mortgage deed which casts on the mortgagee a certain liability with respect to assessment. It is there stipulated that the mortgagee should pay directly to the Government every year the Government dues for assessment that is Rs. 43-5-4, and Local Fund Rs. 2-11-4, in all Rs. 46-0-8.4. The mortgagee does not seek to charge the mortgagor with the payment that he has made of assessment and local fund within the l...
Tag this Judgment!Gangamoyi Debi Vs. Troiluckhya Nath Chowdhry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR375
Ford North, J.1. The only question to be decided on this appeal is, whether the appellant's husband Brojo Nath Chowdhry, who died on the 23rd of April 1867, died intestate, as the appellant alleges, or left a will, as the respondents contend. If he did make that will, the appellant is out of Court. The Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye decided in the appellant's favour, holding that the will was a forgery ; but the High Court of Judicature at Fort William reversed that decision, and dismissed the appellant's suit, with costs.2. Hari Nath Chowdhry, who married Raj Lakhi Debi, and died many years before 1867, left three sons, who succeeded to their father's property, viz., Brojo Nath Chowdhry, the appellant's husband; Mathura Nath Chowdhry, who died about 1870, and whose sons are the respondents on this appeal; and Jadab Nath Chowdhry, who died before 1867, intestate and unmarried, whereupon his mother Raj Lakhi Debi succeeded to his share in the father's estate.3. Brojo Nath Chowdhry resid...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »