Mumbai Court February 1907 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Annappa Bharamganda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR347
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the order of the Sessions Judge at Belgaum acquitting 23 persons who were tried before him and a jury on the charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons (Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code). The Jury returned a verdict of not guilty by a majority of 3 to 2, which the learned Judge accepted. The Government appeal against the order of acquittal on the ground that there was a mis-direction in the judge's charge to the Jury.2. The case for the prosecution is shortly as follows :-Two brothers Shantgauda and Bhau who live at Hunari, Taluka Chikodi, were at enmity with Nemaji, accused No. 1, who died after arrest but before the trial in the Sessions Court. On the morning of the 18th of July 1905, Shantgauda and Bhau, who lived almost opposite to accused No. 1's house, were passing by the latter's on their way to relieve themselves, when the accused attacked them and inflicted injuries on both, wi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikaiji Maneckji Vs. Maneckji Mancherji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR359
Chandavarkar, J.1. The learned Magistrate admits in his report that he disallowed the examination of the petitioner's witnesses as to cruelty because, in his opinion, such evidence was inadmissible in a proceeding under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. That opinion appears to be supported by the authority of the ruling of the Allahabad High Court in In the matter of the petition of W.A. Thompson (1874) 6 N.W.P. 205, where, dealing with Section 536 of Act X of 1872, Pearson J. said 'This provision does not, in my judgment, authorise the Magistrate to entertain applications for separate maintenance, on the ground of ill-treatment, from wives whose husbands have not neglected or refused to maintain them, but who have of their own accord left their husband's house and protection and to order allowances to be paid to such wives on evidence of ill-treatment.' In one sense, that construction of the section, the wording of which, so far as the point now under consideration is concer...
Tag this Judgment!Panachand Pomaji Vs. Sundrabai Thakurji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR409
Chandavarkar, J.1. The question of law in this appeal is, whether the decree, of which execution is sought by the appellant, is, 'a decree for money against several persons' within the meaning of Clause (b) of the proviso to Section 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under that clause, 'where a decree for money against several persons has been transferred to one of them, it shall not be executed against the others.' The decree in the present case, of which the appellant seeks execution, was passed against him as the legal representative of his brother, Amrin Pomaji, deceased and against the respondent, Sundrabai kom Thakurji Manvadi, as the legal representative of her father-in-law, Loma Gomaji, deceased. The decree directed that the plaintiff, who had obtained it, should recover Rs. 22,748 and costs from the property of each of the two deceased above-mentioned. Next, the decree declared that the plaintiff was entitled to get back from the possession of the defendants (the present app...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmant Raghavendra Vs. Shankar Raoji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR323
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This application arises out of a refusal by the lower appellate Court to set aside an ex parte decree under Section 108.2. The first Court refused to set aside the decree on the ground that the application for that purpose was beyond time and also on the ground that summons had been duly served.3. The District Court confirmed the determination of the Court of first instance on the ground that the application under Section 108 was beyond time.4. Now the Article of the Limitation Act which governs such an application is 164 which provides that ' an application by a defendant from an order to sot aside a judgment ex paste must be brought within 30 days from the date of executing any process for enforcing the judgment.'5. It has been determined in Raoji Ramchandra v. Ramji, Bhikaji (1888) P.J. 56, that whore the decree is against two defendants and the decree is executed against one only then that is not an execution of process for enforcing judgment against the ot...
Tag this Judgment!Chapsey Cooverji Vs. Jethabhai Nursey and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR514
Chandavarkar, J.1. The parties to this suit are members of the Cutchi Dassa Oswal Bania caste. The evidence shows that the present litigation is the result of two factions in the caste, one headed by Vassonji Tricumji and the other by Jethabhoy Nursey, one of the defendants in this suit. This is not the first time that the caste has been divided into two factions and been launched into litigation. It is the third time that this Court is called upon to deal with differences among its members. The first time its affairs came up before this Court was in 1881, when a suit was filed by some of its members for the removal of the trustees of some of its religious and charitable trusts. See Thaokersey Dewraj v. Hurbhum Nursey ILR (1883) 8 Bom. 432: and the decision of Scott J. therein. The plaintiffs in that suit succeeded, the Court having removed the trustees and ordered a scheme to be prepared for the future administration of the trusts. That decree, having been taken up in appeal, was vari...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Rasul Vs. Balu Sayaji Chambhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR527
Beaman, J.1. The facts appear to be that the plaintiff before the Mamlatdar has brought a suit on the 25th of October 1906 to recover possession of a house situated within the town limits of Kalyan.2. According (it is admitted) to the Mamlatdars Courts Act then in force the Court would have had jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit; but on the 29th October 1906, the amended Mamlatdars' Courts Act II of 1906 came into force and under the provisions of Section 5 of that Act it is clear that the Mamlatdar would no longer have jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the present suit.3. The case came on for hearing before the Mamlatdar on the 8th November 1906 and an objection was then taken on behalf of the defendant that the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar's Court had been ousted.4. Apparently the Mamlatdar felt unable to dispose of the question himself and he referred the matter to the Collector for order or advice. The Collector on hearing what the plain-tifi had to say in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Chapsey Cooverji Vs. Jethabhai Nursey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR569
Chandavarkar, J.1. The parties to this suit belong to the Cutchee Dassa Oswal Bania caste. The plaintiff, Chapsey Cooverji, alleging that he is a trustee of the property of the caste and of certain funds belonging to it, known as the Sadharan and the Derasur and that he is a member of the Managing Committee of the caste, claims the right to inspect and take copies of the whole, or such portions as he thinks necessary, of the books of account, the minute books and documents of the Mahajan, the Managing Committee, the Sub-Committee and the trustees of the caste. The suit is brought against the defendant, Jethabhai Nursey, on the allegation that he, being President of the Managing Committee, has denied the right claimed by the plaintiff and obstructed the latter in the exercise thereof.2. One of the grounds on which the defendant in his written statement resisted the claim was that since the institution of the suit the plaintiff had ceased to be a trustee of the caste, having been removed...
Tag this Judgment!Dahibai Vs. Sunderji Damji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR819
Russell, J.1. In the matter of this taxation in suit No. 21 of 1904, 1 have gone through the papers with the utmost care that I could and have heard Mr. Mody yesterday and also heard the excellent argument of Mr. Lowndes on the subject of taxation.2. It has been urged before me in the first place that looking at Mr. Justice Scott's Order which said that if the Taxing Master increased the costs of Mr. Kanga, Mr. Kanga should have his costs, if he did not do so Mr. Kanga should lose his costs, I have no power to go into the question of the review again I must say I regret that the case could not have gone before Mr. Justice Scott again so that he might have dealt with it as he was originally seized of it and he made the original order but as that is impossible now it is useless to say anything more about it.3. It seems to me that looking at Mr. Justice Scott's judgment, it is clear that he intended to lay down a principle to be followed by the Taxing Master. I refer to the passage in his...
Tag this Judgment!Vinayakrao Ganpatrao Vs. Vidyashankar Bharati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR404
Chandavarkar, J.1. The facts are shortly these:- In 1879 one Baraabaisaheb Patvardhan of Tasgaon died, leaving considerable property and a son named Ganpatrao, who was a lunatic. Ramabai left a will by which she appointed her daughter-in-law Shidhibai executrix, with directions to manage the property and look after the interests of her son Ganpatrao, Accordingly Shidhibai entered into possession and management of the property in question and obtained a certificate, under Regulation VIII of 1827, on the 19th April 1880. On the 12th November 1884, Shidhibai, under the powers given to her by the certificate of administration, sold the property in dispute to defendant No. 1. It was alleged by defendants 2 to 8 but held not proved, by the Subordinate Judge and his finding on that point has not been impugned before us, that defendant 1 had made a gift of this property to defendants 2 to Section Since the gift fails, we must hold that the defendants 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 have been in possession wi...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Ballal Vs. Dattatraya Vishnu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR320
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is a suit for possession, plaintiffs being some of the whole body of Khots interested.2. The ground on which possession is sought is that by purporting to transfer by way of sale her occupancy rights, the defendant No. 1 resigned the land within the meaning of Section 10 of Bombay Act I of 1880 with the result that the land is at the disposal of the Khot as khoti land free of all enoumbrauces.3. It is conceded before us that unless this transfer can be created as a resignation of the laud, the plaintiffs case must fail.4. In our opinion when one transfers land to another on a sale-deed, he cannot according to the ordinary usage of language be said to have resigned the land.5. But the matter is made clear by the provisions of Section 10.6. It is thereby enacted that ' if a privileged occupant resigned land, the land so resigned shall be at the disposal of the Khot.'7. But a privileged occupant includes a dharekari and quasi dharekari and an occupancy tenant...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »