Mumbai Court March 1906 Judgments
Lalbhai Mulchand Vs. Mansukh Raichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR482
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E.,C.J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover possession of two shops.2.The only question argued before us is as to the effect of a gift contained in the will of one Kikabhai.3.In the 2nd clause of that will the testator says:-'As to the shop 1 (in number) which there is in Madhavpura, the same realizes a rental of Rs. 90 per year. My wife Devkor shall take the rent of the said shop. Should perchance anything have to be paid to my creditors, then my wife shall sell the said shop and pay (the defendant). She is the sole owner of the said (shop).'4. The expression which, in the translation before us, is rendered 'sole owner,' should, according to the view of the Subordinate Judge, Mr. Vadilal T. Parikh, be rendered'full owner, and according to the view of the learned Assistant Judge, should be ' absolute owner:' which practically accords with the rendering given by the Subordinate Judge : and we ourselves take the view that that is, in the circumstances of...
Tag this Judgment!R.S. Woonwalla and Co. Vs. N.C. Macleod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR470
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This appeal arises out of an application by certain creditors in the insolvency of Bhucandas Lallubhai and Hurgovandas Itcharam to set aside a sale of property of the insolvent.2. The property sold consisted of the insolvent's interest as puisne mortgagees in a mill in Bombay and the debt secured by the mortgage.3. On the 10th of April 1905 the Official Assignee agreed with Mr. Ebrahim Rahimtoola to sell the property to him for Rs.. 8,000 subject to the sanction of the Court. On the same day Mr. Premchand Roychand made an offer of Rs. 10,500. Mr. Ebrahim at once expressed his willingness to increase his offer to the same amount.4. Thereupon the Official Assignee brought the matter before the learned Commissioner in Insolvency, who directed that the property should be put up to sale between the two contending parties, Mr. Ebrahim and Mr. Premchand.5. This was done and the property was knocked down to Mr. Ebrahim for Rs. 13,100.6. On the 27th June 1905 ...
Tag this Judgment!N.C. Macleod Vs. H.B. M'S Consul General, Zanzibar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR725
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is a motion on behalf of His Britannic Majesty's Consul General at Zanzibar for an order that Mr. Macleod, the Receiver appointed in Suits No. 255 of 1893, and No. 187 of 1898, be directed to pay probate-duty on all the property and credits which Moosabhai Tharia deceased died possessed of or entitled to at the time of his death which have, or were likely to come into the hands of the Receiver.2. The first of these two suits has been brought for the administration of the estate of Sir Tharia Topan : the second for the administration of the estate of Moosabhai.3. The property and credits on which probate-duty is sought consist of the interests derived by Moosabhai under the will of Sir Tharia Topan in a house at Zanzibar and in the residue left by that testator.4. Moosabhai survived Sir Tharia Topan and died on the 21st of January 1892. At that time probate was not necessary. But by the Zanzibar Order in Council dated the 7th of July 1897, the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Abdulbhai Chhotambhai Vs. Nathia Parshottam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR369
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. We have to thank Mr. Ratanlal and Mr. Patkar for the labour they bestowed on this case which is a reference to us by the First Class Subordinate Judge, Surat, by reason of doubts entertained by him whether the suit is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes or is not so cognizable.2. Having these doubts the learned Judge has submitted the record to us under Section 646 A of the Civil Procedure Code.3. Had the case in Prasanna Kumar Khan v. Uma Charan Hazra (1896) 1 C. W. N. 140, and that in Gool Khan v. Tetar Goala (1899) 4 C.W.N.63, been within the reach of the Judge, we think he would have had no doubts in this case.4. At any rate we are clear that the suit is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and accordingly we order the Court to return the plaint for presentation to the Court of Small Causes at Surat....
Tag this Judgment!Bhavanishankar Ramrao Vs. Timmanna Ram Bhatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR407
Batty, J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain a declaration that the appointment of defendants 10 to 15 as Moktesars of a certain Devasthan was illegal, and that the plaintiff is entitled to the office of Moktesar of that Devasthan.2. The Court of first instance held that the suit was not maintainable without leave obtained under Section 18 of Act XX of 1863, and that the plaintiff had been properly dismissed by the defendants 1 to 9, who constitute the Committee of the Temple.3.The lower appellate Court held that the suit did not fall within Section 14 of the Act; that leave under Section 18 was unnecessary; that the defendants 1 to 9 could not dismiss the plaintiff from office without good and sufficient cause, and that no good and sufficient cause for dismissal had existed. The lower appellate Court reversed the decree of the Court of first instance and declared the dismissal of the plaintiff to be void, but held that no case had been made out for declaring the appointments of defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Sidharathrai Soojanrai Vs. Anantram Buldeodas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR567
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an application to us in revision, under the following circumstances. A decree was passed ex parts against the applicant who is a defendant in the suit.2. He applied to have that judgment set aside.3. His application was refused in the first instance by the learned third Judge of the Presidency Small Cause Court and that decision was affirmed by the Pull Court.4. The ground on which the Court declined to set aside the ex parte decree was that in effect it had no jurisdiction to do so inasmuch as the application was beyond time. This view was founded on Article 164 in the Second Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act.5. In order to uphold this decision we must see whether thirty days had run from the date of executing any process for enforcing the judgment. The suggestion is that there was execution of a process for enforcing judgment on the. 5th of October inasmuch as on that day by the operation of Section 490 it became unnecessary to re-attach...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Trimbak Balaji Mahajan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR587
ORDER1. In the first instance the petition of Babu Balakdas of the 24th September 1904 was not a complaint. Having regard to the notice served by Mr. Artal, he treated it as a complaint in a criminal case. He was not justified in examining the present appellant petitioners. His proceedings are irregular and illegal and his order under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code is ultra vires.2. The Court accordingly sets aside the order passed in the cases of Trimbak Balaji and Daso Dhonddev....
Tag this Judgment!Chaudhri Mehdi Hasan Vs. Muhammad Hasan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR387
Ford North, J. 1. This action was commenced in the year 1897 to have a deed dated the 23rd of July 1886, and executed by the plaintiff, Chaudhri Mehdi Hasan, declared void and cancelled. The Subordinate Judge of Barabanki made a decree to that effect ; but this was reversed, and the suit was dismissed, on appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh on the 31st day of July 1899.2. Just before that appeal Mehdi Hasan (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') had sold part of his interest to two persons who, by an order of the Judicial Commissioner dated the 10th day of May 1899, were joined as co-plaintiffs with him, and these three persons are now the appellants.3. Chaudhri Nabi Bakhsh, who died many years ago, had thvee sons : Mehdi Hasan, the plaintiff; Hadi Hasan, who is (sic), and whose son is the defendant Muhammad Hasan; and (sic) Bakhsh, who disappeared before 1880 and has not been heard of since. He left two children, Abdus-Sattar and Abdul Ghaffar.4. At the date...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Hemanta Kumari Vs. Maharaja Jagadindra Nath Roy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR400
Robertson, J.1. This dispute relates to 497 begahs of land, adjacent to the Brahmaputra river. This land was, at the date of the plaint, viz., 3rd October 1893, in the possession of the first respondent (who will be referred to as 'the respondent'), and the suit was in substance one of ejectment at the instance of the appellant. 2. The earliest and not the least material fact in the case is a decree of 27th March 1835, which is the basis of the appellant's case; but the complete elucidation of her title was effected by a judicial order of 14th March 1859 which affirmed the correctness of a Thakmap made in 1853. The Order of 1859 and the map of 1853 conclusively establish that the appellant's title includes the whole of the land in dispute.3. The case of the respondent is rested on possession. Even on the showing of the appellant, the respondent at the date of the plaint had been in possession for eleven years, and the respondent says for twelve years (the period of limitation), and lon...
Tag this Judgment!Malik Ahmad Wali Khan Vs. Musammat Shamsi Jahan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR397
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Allahabad of the 24th February 1903, which set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly of the 19th December 1900.2. The plaintiff, Malik Ahmad Wali Khan, is brother of the half-blood of the two ladies who are defendants. In the year 1896 a criminal charge was pending against Sardar Wali Khan; a half-brother of the plaintiff and whole brother of the defendants ; and the various members of the family took steps to procure funds for the defence of the accused man.3. On the 6th October 1896 the plaintiff and the defendants executed a mortgage bond of the ordinary kind for the sum of Rs. 10,000 in favour of Banarsi Parshad, by which the plaintiff hypothecated certain property belonging to him, and the defendants, certain property belonging to them.4. On the 2nd November 1896 the plaintiff paid off the mortgage, the sum actually paid for principal and interest being Rs. 10,025.5. On the 2nd April 1900, the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »