Mumbai Court April 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.
Gopalrao Manohar Tambekar Vs. Harilal Subrai Sevak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR715
Chandavarkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the respondents Nos. 1 to 13 as plaintiffs against the appellant as defendant No. 1 and respondent No. 13 (Bai Dhanlaxmi) as defendant No. 2 in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Umreth, to recover the arrears of an annuity and a sidha allowance for 8 years from Samvat 1945 to 1949 and from Samvat 1957 to 1959. The plaintiffs claimed the arrears as shewaks of Ranchod Raiji's temple at Dakore, of which defendant No. 1 is manager and trustee. Respondent No. 14 was joined as defendant No. 2 in the suit because she claimed half the arrears as widow of one Ramchandra, a member of the family of the respondents 1 to 13 and these respondents contested her right upon the ground that no female member of the family was entitled to the annuity, wholly or partially. The Subordinate Judge held that the right of the first 13 respondents was barred by limitation; so far as the arrears claimed for Samvats 1945, 1946 and 1947 were concerned h...
Secretary of State Vs. Wasudeo Sakharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR719
Chandavarkar, J.1. The only question raised on this appeal is, whether the respondents, as Khots of the village of Bele Budruk in the District of Ratnagiri, are entitled to occupy and cultivate lands left dry in the river-bed as far as the middle of the bed opposite their khoti village. The District Judge, who tried the suit brought by the respondents against the appellant (the Secretary of State for India in Council), has found upon that question in the affirmative.2. But his finding is assailed before us upon the ground that the river in question, being admittedly neither tidal nor navigable, is, under Section 37 of the Land Revenue Code, the property of Government and that the respondents cannot claim any right to the lands left dry in its bed as far as the middle of the bed, because they are not owners of any land adjoining the bank of the river, but are, as Khots, mere farmers of the land revenue of the village.3. The District Judge has not found, nor has it been argued before us ...
Gulappa Doningappa Vs. Tayawa Kempanna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR834
Chandavarkar, J.1. On the authority of the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Sheo Shankarlal v. Debi Sahai and Lal Sheo Pertab Bahadur Singh v. Allahabad Bank (1903) L.R. 30 IndAp 209 it is contended that property inherited by a daughter from her father under the Mitakshara law is not such stridhan,as on her death devolves on her daughter but that it must go to her sons as if she were a male. Those decisions, however, turn upon the law of the Benares School and the Judicial Committee expressly confine their ruling to it. On this side of India a different law has prevailed as may be seen from a series of decisions of this Court. See Navalram Atmaram v. Hand Kishor Shiv Narayan (1865) I.B.H. C. 209; Tuljaram Morarji v. Mathuradas ILR (1881) 5 Bom. 662; Bhagirthibai v. Kahnujirav ILR (1886) 11 Bom. 285; Jankibai v. Sundra ILR (1899) 14 Bom. 612; Gandhi Maganlal v. Bai Jadav ILR (1898) 24 Bom. 192 : 1 Bom. L.R. 574; Vijiardngam v. Lakshuman (1871) 8 B.H.C. 244; an...
Hasanali Mahomedali Vs. Esmailji Sulemanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR606
Batty, J.1. The plaint in this case prays (1) for the administration of the estate of one Mahomedali who died on 18th December 1896, (2) for the setting aside the sale to the first defendant, an executor of Mahomedali's, of Mahomedali's interests in a partnership, (3) for the ascertainment for the true value of that interest at date of Mahomedali's death and for the profits made by the first defendant's use in his business of Mahomedali's moneys, (4) for an account against both defendant 1 and defendant 2, executors of Mahomedali, on the footing of wilful default and (5 & 6) for the appointment of a Receiver to get in assets in the hands of the executors, to pay maintenance thereout to the plaintiffs and to sue the first defendant. The plaintiffs are the minor sons of Mahomedali suing by their next friend Hussanali Jeevabhai.2. The first and second defendants are executors appointed by the will of Mahomedali, executed on the 17th December 1896, the day before his death. The third defen...
Haji Umarani Kachi Vs. Ganeshbhat Purshottambhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1101
Chandavarkar, J.1. The lower appellate Court has found that the defendants have acquired a right of easement over the western'bol' of the plaintiff, of discharging rain and refuse water and the plaintiff's suit for an injunction has been dismissed on that ground. But it appears to have overlooked Section 15 of the Easements Act (V of 1892), according to which, for the acquisition of such an easement, it must have been peaceably and openly enjoyed by the person claiming it as an easement and as of right without interruption and for twenty years and the period of twenty years must be taken to be a period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested. Here the finding of the lower appellate Court is that the easement was discontinued in 1900. The suit was brought in 1904. Therefore there was no acquisition of the easement claimed. But it is said that Section 15 has no application because here it is a case of imm...
Emperor Vs. Umakant Balvant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR706
Chandavarkar, J.1. The evidence recorded by the Magistrate in accordance with the remand order of this Court leaves the case, in my opinion, where it was before the remand and the result is that we must look to the finding of the Magistrate and see whether he has distinctly found proved against the present petitioner the essentials of the offence of abetment of false personation by the petitioner's brother Balkrishna. All that the Magistrate has found is that 'the accused intended that Bal-krishna should do the work if called on.' That is not enough. Before the petitioner could be convicted of abetment the Magistrate should have found that the petitioner had asked Bal krishna not only to do his (petitioner's) work as Kulkarni of the village but also to falsely personate the petitioner and represent to the Assistant Collector that he (Balkrishna) was the Kulkarni. There is no such finding. No doubt the Magistrate also says :-'It is also proved and admitted that even after he' (i.e. the ...
Janki Dagdu Vs. Mahadu Devji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR710
Chandavarkar, J.1. It is found by the lower appellate Court that the sale to the respondent by Gangabai was not justified by any necessity or purpose recognised by the Hindu Law and that, therefore, the title acquired by the respondent from Gangabai under the sale could not enure after her death. The appellant, as the next reversionary heir, became entitled to the property. The respondent, in answer to the appellant's claim for possession, alleged that immediately after the sale of the property by Gangabai, the appellant had contracted to sell the property to him. But the lower appellate Court has found upon the evidence that there was no such contract. Upon these findings the appellant has been rightly held entitled to recover the property.2. But the lower appellate Court has also directed by its decree that the appellant should pay to the respondent Rs. 400, which formed the purchase-money for the sale by Gangabai. That liability has been cast by the lower appellate Court on the appe...
Nagardas Vutsraj Vs. Anandrao Bhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR495
Davar, J.1. The plaintiff, who is an attorney's clerk, has filed this suit for a declaration amongst other things that on the two insolvencies of the first defendant's father, Bhai Gunpat, the properties mentioned in the plaint vested in the Official Assignee and that the same are now validly transferred to him. For a sum of Rs. 2000 paid by him to the Official Assignee he has purchased from him all the right title and interest of the insolvent Bhai Gunput in the properties mentioned in the schedule to the conveyance, dated the 23rd of December 1905 and all other estate that may have been left by Gunput Maneckji Patel, the father of the insolvent Bhai Gunput. The properties claimed by the plaintiff are of the value of about a lac and ninety thousand Rupees. On the 17th of January 1907 the plaintiff presented a petition to the Prothonotary alleging that the first defendant was a minor under the age of 18 years and praying that his mother or some other fit and proper person may be appoin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›