Mumbai Court October 1907 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Bajrangi Singh Vs. Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1348
Andrew Scoble, J.1. Sitla Baktah Singh, a Hindoo of the tribe of Bhale Sultan Chhattris, resident in Sultanpur, died some time before the annexation of Oudh, leaving him surviving a widow named Daryan Kunwar and two daughters, Janga Kunwar and Jagrani Kunwar. He was absolute owner of an estate known as Pidara Kurnai and other property, which at his death passed to his widow and, at her death, would have passed to his daughters, but for a custom of the tribe excluding daughters and their issue from succession. The widow died on the 6 h of August 1892. having previously said the whole of the estate to her son-in-law Maheshar Bakhsh Singh, the husband of her daughter Jagrani Kunwar and mutation of names in the Revenue Registers was effected in his favour. After the death of Maheshar, which occurred on the 3rd of April 1893, the name of his son, Manokarnika Bakhsh Singh the present respondent was entered in the Government Records as proprietor of the estate; and the present appellants (wit...
Ranchordas Tribhowandas Vs. Pestonji Jehangir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1329
Russell, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sues the defendants on a promissory note dated the 2nd May 1904-Rs. 5000 demand promissory note-and on the 20th September 1904, it is proved, Rs. 1000 were paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.2. The only defence that was raised by Mr. Lang for the defendant was that of limitation.3. The plaint was admitted on the 10th June 1907, which was the first day after the long vacation of this year.4. Two points have been raised on behalf of the defendants upon the question of limitation.5. Of course the three years elapsed on the 2nd May 1907.6. The first question that arises is : whether the plaint can be said to have been presented within the proper period. As I have said it was presented on the first day after the vacation on the 10th June 1907; and I have been referred by theProthonotary, who admitted the plaint, to a case which is exactly in point, being Appeal 746 in Suit No, 383 of 1886, which was heard on the 24th November 1893 before Sir Char...
Emperor Vs. Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1287
1. It is not necessary to call upon the Government Pleader in this case because after having heard a very careful argument addressed to us by Mr. Shah in support of the application we see no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence.2. In the first place it is contended that a pleader is absolutely privileged from criminal prosecution for defamatory words uttered or written by him in the course of his professional duty. In support of that the decision of the Madras High Court in Sullivan v. Norton I L R (1886) 10 Mad. 28 F. B is cited. The point appears to have been raised in In re Nagarji Trikamji I L R (1894) 19 Bom. 340. But there the Court thought it unnecessary to decide whether an advocate or pleader has the unqualified privilege accorded to him in the Madras decision. In the present case too we think it unnecessary to decide the point. It is no doubt a salutary principle that the Bar should be protected and that unnecessary restrictions should not be put upon advocate...
Dayabhai Tapidas Vs. Chunilal Hurgowandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-18-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR97
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. By this suit the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the 1st defendant is not the validly adopted son ofDamodardas Tapidas, and that his alleged adoption by Harkor, the widow of Damodardas, is void and of no effect. Damodardas and the plaintiff were the sons by different wives of Tapidas Varajdas, who died in 1886.2. It is common ground that they were separate in estate.3. On the 8th of August 1895 Damodardas executed a will in which there was the following clause :Should I after my death have no male issue of my (loins) and should I in my life time have not adopted any one as my son, then my first wife Harkor and should she be not alive then my second wife Amba Lakshimi, shall after my death adopt any boy out of the descendants of my father (ancestors) and if amongst them there be no boy who can according to the Shastras (i. e. religious texts) be adopted, then out of my caste, by performing the ceremony prescribed in the shastras (i. e. religious texts) (sick)...
In Re: Anant Shivaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1285
Chandavarkar, J.1. We accept the Magistrate's statement that the application made to him by the Pleader of the applicant for the cancellation of the surety bond was made at the time of the rising of the Court. Whether that means during or after the Court hours is not clear; but if it was after Court hours it was competent for the Magistrate to decline to receive the application then. Instead of that the Magistrate received the application; it was duly filed as presented during Court hours and the Magistrate made an endorsement of the presentation over his signature. After that it was not open to the Magistrate to treat the application as one not duly presented. After it had been received and taken as presented there was no option left to the Magistrate, but to act under Section 502 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He was bound to issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. The District Magistrate acting under his appellate powers has indeed observed that though the Magistrate receive...
Gokaldas Kala Vs. Govind Vishwanath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1334
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal arises out of the proceedings in execution of a decree passed under Section 522 of the Civil Procedure Code in accordance with an award filed under Section 526.2. After the decree was passed the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act became applicable in the district and it is argued that the Court executing that decree can, not only prescribe instalments but also modify the provision as to payment of interest contained in the decree by directing that interest should cease to run.3. The decree, though passed under the chapter of the Code which relates to reference to arbitration, is in effect for sale. Therefore it is contended it comes within Section 15(b) of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, But the decree for sale to which that section applies must have been passed in a suit of the description mentioned in Section 3 Clause (y) or Clause (z) and it certainly is a question whether an application under Section 525 of the Civil Procedure Code is a ...
Dattatraya Balwant Chitnis Vs. the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1321
Russell, J.1. This suit was filed by the trustees of a temple at Walkeshwar against the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay and others.2. It appears that the Municipality of Bombay in carrying out some important drainage operations at Malabar Hill had erected what are known as septic tanks on the foreshore close by the Bank of Bombay Bungalow on the Lands End Road, the object being to drain the Southern portion of Malabar Hill down to those septic tanks; and the suit arises out of a certain drain, which has been made by the defendants and is delineated on Plan D1 (which has been put in) a distance of about 1,500 ft. more or less North and South, the object being to allow the sewage which goes from the Southern portion of Malabar Hill and Walkeshwar to run into these septic tanks. The object of the septic tanks is to have one tank above another and the sewage by force of gravitation goes into the first tank and from there by a process of percolation and gravitation the sewage goes into the...
Ochhavlal Chandraprasad Vs. Gopal Kalyan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1332
Lawerence Jenkins, C.J.1. The only question that arises in this suit is whether an annual tenancy to which the Land Revenue Code applies can be determined without a notice in writing by the landlord.2. It is urged before us that it can, because there was a re- pudiation of the landlord's title.3. As a matter of fact there was, in this case, no repudiation of the relation of landlord and tenant. But apart from that we must give effect to the express provisions of the Land Revenue Code.4. It has been held as a fact that there is an annual tenancy and Section 84 of the Land Revenue Code says: 'An annual tenancy shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be presumed to run from the end of one cultivating season to the end of the next. The cultivating season may be presumed to end on the 31st March.An annual tenancy shall require for its termination a notice given in writing by the landlord to the tenant, or by the tenant to the landlord at least three months before the end of the year...
Pestonji Nusserwanji Vs. Nemchand Maneckchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1301
Russell, J.1. The plaintiff herein by his plaint claims to be the owner of a certain house in Gola Lane which contains an agiary and he sued the original defendant, who is dead, (and whose representatives are the present defendants) for trespass upon the said premises, for that the original defendant committed a trespass upon the said house and Agiary by erecting a new wall between them in such a way as to brick in certain window frames in the plaintiff's house and also certain cornices thereof.2. The defendant's house is situated immediately to the north of the plaintiff's.3. The plaint as originally filed carelessly set forth the plaintiff's case, which is not surprizing, seeing what the plaintiff admitted in his cross-examination with regard to his knowledge of its contents. It was first amended before the hearing however, to bring his case more in accordance with the facts. But Mr. Robertson, counsel for the plaintiff, had not gone very far in his opening of the 'plaintiff's; case,...
Amritram Harinarayan Vs. Ramji Vallabh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR87
Chandavarkar, J.1. We are of opinion that the District Judge has misconstrued Section 539 of the Civil Procedure Code in holding that it does not apply to this suit. Under that section one of two conditions must exist in order to bring a suit within its purview. Either there-must be any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public, charitable or religious purposes, or there must be some direction of the Court deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust. If in any suit one of these two conditions exist it must be filed in the2. Court (mentioned in the section) either by the Advocate General or by two or more persons interested in the trust, with the sanction of the Advocate General previously obtained.3. As to the relief, so far as we can gather from the judgment of the District Judge, he seems to think that this case does not fall within Section 539 because no relief is claimed of the description of the clauses a. b, c, d and e in that section. B...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »