Mumbai Court December 1907 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Gangu Vs. Chandrabhagabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR149
Chandavarkar, J.1. The property in dispute belonged to one Dashrath Ramshet, on whose death in 1900, his widow, Kashi, succeeded as heir. In 1902, she was murdered by Govind Purshotam, son of her husband's half-brother, Purshotam Ramshet. For that offence Govind was tried, convicted, and hanged in the same year.2. The respondent in this second appeal, Chandrabhagabai, who is the widow of Govind, thereupon sued to recover the property of Dashrath Ramshet upon the ground that, on Kashi's death, the property descended to Govind as the next reversionary heir of Dashrath, and that, on Govind's death, it descended to her (the respondent) as his widow and heir. She also maintained in her claim that, in the event of its being held by the Court that in consequence of the murder of Kashi by him Govind had lost his right of inheritance to Dashrath, the property must be regarded as having devolved upon her in her own right as reversionary heir of Dashrath, by reason of her being his gotraja-sapind...
Muhammad Naseem Vs. Mirza Muhammad Abbas Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR126
Collins, J. 1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the Court of the Judical Commissioner of Oudh. The principal appellant obtained leave to appeal in India in the usual way. The cross-appellant obtained from His Majesty in Council special leave to appeal.2. The questions in these appeals turn upon the construction of a deed of mortgage and relate to the terms upon which the mortgagor was entitled to redeem. The mortgage was executed by one Chaudhri Imdad Ashraf in favour of the respondent on 30th September, 1885. The material parts of the deed are set out in the Record and are abstracted in the judgments below, and need not be here repeated. The mortgage money was Rs. 29,000, and the rate of interest 10 per cent per annum. By the 15th September 1902 the mortgagor had paid in all Rs. 13,461 on account of interest. On the 4th November 1886 he paid Rs. 2,699 on account of principal. Afterwards he made default in paying interest, and the mortgagee instituted a suit for posse...
Ardeshir Sorabsha Moos Vs. Khushaldas Gokuldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR268
Batchelor, J.1. The appellant in these appeals was the original plaintiff. He sued to recover on certain bills drawn on the defendant and endorsed over to the plaintiff, the defendant having failed to pay the bills. In the first Court three of the suits were dismissed on the ground that the defendant was not an ' acceptor' within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act inasmuch as he had not signed his assent upon the bills. In the fourth suit, there being no room for this objection, a decree was made in the plaintifi's favour. On appeal to the District Judge, all four suits were dismissed on the grounds (i) that the plaintiff was suing as agent for the London firm, Messrs. Fracis, Times and Co., without disclosing his principals so that the suits were defective in form, and (ii) that the suits were not competent as the bills had never been dishonoured and protested. Against these decrees the plaintiff has preferred the present appeals, and the first point taken before us is as t...
Emperor Vs. Harischandra Talcherkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR201
Curiam, J.1. We are of opinion that the learned Presidency Magistrate who tried this case has not observed the procedure prescribed by law. In his report he says that he tried it as a warrant case, subject, however, to the provisions of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. But if he did try it as a warrant case then it is impossible to understand why he has not only recorded no evidence but has framed no charge and recorded no examination of the accused as required by law. As Mr. Branson has pointed out, there is no pretence for suggesting because there is nothing whatever to show that there was any charge read out to the accused or that the accused was given to understand what it was that he had to meet. Judging from the record such as it is (and all that we have to go upon is the Magistrate's judgment), he appears to have dealt with the case summarily. Assuming that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to so deal with it he was bound to record a summary pf the accused's examinat...
In Re: Lakshmidas Lalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR28
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is a petition by Lakshmidas Lalji for a revision of the order passed by the District Judge of Ahmed-abad, directing the Subordinate Judge of Godhra to prosecutethe petitioner for an offence under Section 210 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The circumstances under which the order has been passed are shortly these:-The opponent Ghunilal Velji applied to the Subordinate Judge for sanction under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prosecute the petitioner, Lakshmidas Lalji, for offences under Sections 193 and 210 of the Indian Penal Code.3.The Subordinate Judge having refused to grant the sanction, the opponent Chunilal Velji appealed to the District Court. That Court held aprima facie case for prosecution to have been made out but deemed it expedient 'in the interests of public justice' to direct the prosecution of the petitioner by the Subordinate Judge rather than grant a sanction to prosecute to a private party.4. On the authority of a Full Bench ruling...
Ma Ween Di Vs. Ma Kin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR41
Robertson, J.1. The question in this appeal is one of fact; and it has been decided against the appellants by two Courts. The case, however, deserves attention, for there has been a strong appeal made to the general presumption of marriagearising from cohabitation with habit and repute.2. It is necessary, before applying this presumption, to make sure that we have got the conditions necessary for its existence. It is not superfluous to suggest that, first of all, there must be some body of neighbours, many or few, or some sort of public, large or small, before repute can arise. Again, the habit and repute, which alone is effective, is habit and repute of the particular status which, in the country in question, is lawful marriage.3. The differences between English and Oriental customs about the relations of the sexes make such caution especially necessary. Among most English people, open cohabitation without marriage is so uncommon that the fact of cohabitation in many classes of societ...
Fatima Bibi Vs. Sheikh Ahmed Buksh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR50
Collins, J.1. The question in this case is whether a certain deed of gift made by one Moulvi Dadar Buksh deceased in favour of his son Sheikh Ahmed Buksh is invalid by reason of the Mahomedan law of marz-ul-maut relating to gifts made in death illness. The deed was executed on the 21st May 1897, and on the 27th of the same month Moulvi Dadar Buksh, the donor, died. A great number of objections to the deed were urged by the appellants (the defendants) before the Subordinate Judge, all of which were considered in great detail and overruled by him in a most elaborate judgment in favour of the respondents. That judgment was affirmed on appeal by the High Court at Fort William, and it is the concurrent judgments of these two tribunals that this Board is now called upon to overrule. The only point which the appellants have argued on this occasion was that which no doubt goes to the root of the matter, viz., whether the gift was invalid under the law of marz-ul-maut. The test which was treate...
Musammat Surajmani Vs. Rabi Nath Ojha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1907
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR59
Collins, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court at Allahabad affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur. The question is whether the first appellant, Musammat Surajmani, acquired a right to alienate the property now in suit under a deed of gift or testamentary instrument of her late husband, Ishwar Nath Ojha. The material part of the document is as follows:-I now of my own free will and accord while in a sound state of mind and in enjoyment of my-senses make a gift of the entire village Dwarkapur Nankar in tappa Asnari and half of the village Telpurwa in tappa Pachhar to Musammat Dhanmati, my first wife, the entire village Doharia Khurd in tappa Banjarha and half of Mauza Telpurwa aforesaid to Musammat Surajmani, my second wife, and half of mauza Jamla Jot, i.e., an eight anna share in it, in tappa : Barikpar to Musammat Sarsuti, my daughter-in-law, out of the aforesaid propertywithout consideration on the conditions that during my lifetime I shall remain in posse...
Emperor Vs. Narayan Shivram Barve
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1385
Chandavarkar, J.1. The petitioner Narayan Shivram Barve, applies for revision of the order passed by the District Magistrate of Dharwar on the 16th of August, directing under Section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the said Barve do execute a bond with two sureties, himself in a sum of Rs. 300 and each surety in a sum of Rs. 150 for his good behaviour for one year. The ground upon which the order has been passed is that, in the opinion of the District Magistrate, there has been more than an attempt on the part of the petitioner to disseminate seditious matter within the meaning of Section 124, Indian Penal Criminal Application for Revision No. 281 of 1907 Code, by means of two public lectures delivered at Gadag.2. It is admitted that some, if not all, of the expressions which the petitioner is found by the Magistrate to have used in those lectures are seditious within the meaning of the law. What is urged is that these expressions were not used at all by the petitioner but h...
Sir Jehangir Cowasji Jehangir Vs. the Hope Mills Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1380
Davar, J.1. The plaintiff, Sir Jehangir Cowasji Jehangir as mortgagpe in possession of the property of the first defpndant Company The Hope Mills Limited, instituted tbis suit in August 1903 to recover the moneys due to him under his mortgage and prayed that in default of payment the right to redeem may be foreclosed or the mortgaged premises may be sold. The mortgage is dated the 5th of April 1900. After the date of the mortgage the plaintiff on the 30th of May 1901 had entered into an agreement with the first defendant Company under the terms of which he worked the Mills of the Company. This agreement is mentioned in the plaint and a copy of it is annexed and marked Ex. B.2. On the 26th of January 1904 the plaintiff obtained a decree which is manifestly defective. In the first place the decree is drawn up in conformity with Form 26 and is entitled 'Decree on mortgage, mortgagor in possession.' The plaintiff at the institution of the suit and at the date of the decree was admittedly i...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »