Mumbai Court July 1906 Judgments
Mahomedbhai Nensey Vs. Fatmabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR615
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of Batchelor J. There is no dispute as to the facts and the only points for our decision are first whether under the will of Nensey Khairaz the plaintiff is entitled to receive during her life the net income of a sum of Rs. 60,000 and secondly whether she is entitled to claim immediate payment of one-third of the sum of Rs. 60,000. Both points were decided in the plaintiff's favour by the learned Judge.2. The scheme of the testator's will in the events that happened was that after certain legacies the residue was divided into three shares. Of these two were given to his two sons Mahomedbhai and Kassamali and with these we have no immediate concern. Trusts of the third share were declared in favour of the wife and children of his son Husseinbhai and it is the rights in this share that have been the matter in contest before us.3. The material directions as to this third share are set forth in Clause 18 of the will.4. T...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Vishwanath Krishna Sathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR589
Aston, J.1. One Laxmandas appeared before the Police and was by the Police referred to the Magistrate, with the intimation that he should make an application to the Magistrate and that they would then enquire. Laxmandas then made his representation to the Magistrate stating certain circumstances and the City Magistrate, Poona, before whom the said representation was made sent it to the Police with authority to investigate and report.2. The Sessions Judge who makes the reference states in his grounds of reference that the City Magistrate under the belief that an offence had been committed sent the matter to the Police for enquiry. There is nothing before us to show whether the City Magistrate believed or suspected this. Aninvestigation was made by the Police and certain registered and insured packets produced by Laxmandas were returned to the Magistrate with a report as to the result of their investigation. The City Magistrate then made a further enquiry and examined one Sathe on solemn...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Tirbhuwan Bahadur Vs. Raja Rameshar Bakhsh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR722
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from a Judgment and Decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, affirming a Decree of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow.2. The matter in dispute is the title to the Taluka of Samarpaha in the district of Rae Bareli in Oudh. The appellant's claim is based on an alleged adoption. The respondent claims as next heir under Act I. of 1869, Section 22, Clause (6).3. The last male Owner of the Taluka was Thakur Basant Singh. He died on the 12th of November 1857. His next heir was his widow Thakurain Daryao Kunwar. After the confiscation of proprietary rights in Oudh by the Proclamation of March 1858, a summary settlement of the Taluka was made with her on the 10th of May 1858, and a sanad was afterwards granted to her. On the preparation of the lists of Talukdars in accordance with the provisions of Act I. of 1869, her name was entered in Lists I. and II. It is not disputed that the Thakurain became Talukdar, not in right of her husband Basant Si...
Tag this Judgment!Mulchand Dagdu Vs. Govind Gopal Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR578
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an application to us under Section 122 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. The only question is whether the Subordinate Judge has committed an error within the scope of that section in holding that Section 310A of the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable to a purchaser subsequent to attachment and prior to sale under that attachment.3. In our opinion, where there has been a subsequent sale following on the attachment, a person answering this description is one whose immoveable property has been sold under the Chapter.4. In deciding otherwise the learned Judge has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which was vested in him.5. The decision of the learned Judge that the parties should determine the matters at issue between them in a suit under Section 310A is, in our opinion, erroneous.6. The rule is, therefore, made absolute; and the case must be sent back to the Subordinate Court for determination in the light of these remarks.7. Costs will follow ...
Tag this Judgment!Rakhmabai Pandurang Vs. Keshav Raghunath Bhise
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR675
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover possession of property from the defendant who relies on an alienation in his favour made by the widow of a preceding owner.2. It has been held by both the lower Courts that the alienation was not justified by any necessity recognized by Hindu Law.3. Consequently it is not open to the defendant to rely on Article 91 of the Limitation Act as a bar to the suit. (See Hdrihar Ojha v. Dasarathi Misra ILR (1905) Cal. 257.4. Then it has been contended on the part of the defendant that the Court should be required to come to a definite finding as to whether or not the preceding reversioner, under whom the plaintiff claims, ratified the alienation. But, in our opinion, it is clear that if the doctrine of ratification has any application to this case, the fact of ratification is negatived by findings of the lower appellate Court.5. We must therefore confirm the decree with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Joti Babu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR549
ORDER1. The Court sets aside the conviction and sentence and orders the fine, if paid, to be refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Balaji Apte Vs. Nagu Dagdu Chaugula
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR610
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. The plaintiff has brought this suit against ten. defendants and as the case was ultimately formulated in the lower appellate Court, the complaint against defendants Nos. 2 to 10 was breach of contract and against No. 1 instigation to the breach of that contract.2. The lower appellate Court granted the plaintiff relief against all the defendants.3. From that decree defendants Nos. 1, 2, 8 and 9 have appealed.4. In our opinion the appeal of 2, 8 and 9 fails.5. The appeal, however, of No. 1 raises an. interesting point.6. The fact, that defendant No. 1 may have induced the rest of the defendants to adopt a course of conduct which amounted to a breach of a contract by the other defendants with the plaintiff, would not alone give the plaintiff a right of action: to entitle the plaintiff to succeed against the defendant No. 1 he must establish not merely that defendant No. 1 procured the other defendants to commit a breach of contract, but that he did so k...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnabai Janardan Vs. Manohar Sundarrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR671
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an application to us under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground that the applicant has been improperly denied the right she claims to sue as a pauper under Chapter XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The case made by her is that after the death of her husband her husband's brother possessed himself of her property including the ornaments that she ordinarily was accustomed to wear, and that he retains them and refuses to return them to her.3. She applied for leave to sue as a pauper to recover, among other things, these particular ornaments, alleging that she was not possessed of sufficient means to enable her to pay the fees prescribed by law for the plaint.4. The Subordinate Judge has rejected her application on the ground that she must have had, at the times mentioned in his judgment, these ornaments which she had been accustomed to wear.5. Before us it is urged that the Subordinate Judge was not entitled to take those or...
Tag this Judgment!BenIn Menahim Yousaf Vs. John Poleologo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR580
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. We are of opinion that the document of November 1904 does not come within Section 17(d) of the Registration Act, and on the facts appearing on the Reference that the appellant's contention that the agreement of lease was at an end is erroneous and cannot be supported....
Tag this Judgment!Purshotam Murlidhar Vs. Sitaram Balkrishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR606
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings in execution of a decree.2. The only point for our consideration is whether the Judge has committed an error in his treatment of the contention advanced on the part of the judgment-debtor that he was an agriculturist.3. The learned Judge did not permit the judgment-debtor to adduce all the evidence he desired in support of this contention, but he thought the judgment-debtor's own statement showed conclusively that he was not an agriculturist. He relied in particular on that part of Section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act which enacts that an assignee of Government assessment is not as such an agriculturist within this section.4. A man is not excluded from being an agriculturist merely because he may happen to be an assignee from Government of assessment if in fact he by himself or by his servant or by the tenants earns his livelihood wholly or principally by agriculture.5. An Inamdar even if he be, as ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »