Mumbai Court May 1907 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Raju Ahilaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR730
Heaton, J.1. The Only point argued before us is one of law. in the trial before the Sessions Judge, the three appellants were not questioned by the Judge. It is therefore argued on their behalf that in accordance with the decision in the case of Emperor v. Savalya Atma Pastya : (1907)9BOMLR356 the conviction must be reversed and a retrial ordered, on the ground that the trial was illegal. This proposition proceeds on the assumption that the provisions of Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, apply to the case of an accused tried before the Sessions Judge, even when ho has been questioned on the case generally by the Committing Magistrate. That is a proposition which seems to us to be open to serious doubt, but it has been asserted in the Ruling referred to and before that it had been asserted on. several occasions by Benches of this Court. We must, therefore, reverse the conviction and order a retrial unless we are prepared to refer the point to a Full Bench; This we are not prepared t...
Tag this Judgment!Annanda Pershad Panja Vs. Prasannamoyi Dasi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR743
Collins, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants from a decision of the High Court of Bengal affirming the decision of the District Judge passed on remand, which had affirmed the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The plaintiff's claim was to recover possession of certain land from the defendants, together with mesne profits. The facts were complicated and several difficult questions of fact and law arose for decision, but the only question raised before their lordships on this appeal is whether Article 95 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877, is a bar to the plaintiff's claim.2. The land in question is known as as Mehal Arjunbani and is a patni tenure which was once held by a lady named Damayanti Debi; she died leaving six daughters, of whom five, acting as executors of their mother's will, of which they had obtained probate, granted a darpatni, or under-lease, to one Jogendra Nath on 25th May, 1885.3. On the 8th February 1891 the five daughters (the sixth was then dead) sold their pat...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Mohun Misser Vs. Surendra Narayan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR750
Arthur Wilson, J.1. The respondent represents the owner of a ten-and-half annas share in a putni tenure of considerable extent, Turuf Inaitpur Katakose, in the district of Purnea. The putni included amongst other properties a holding to which the present suit relates. This holding had become vested in Ram Kumar Singh, who, it is not disputed, held as an occupancy raiyat, enjoying as such the rights conferred upon a tenant of that class by the Bengal Tenancy Act (No. VIII of 1885). Ram Kumar Singh, in conjunction with some of the owners of shares in the putni, took steps for the purpose of growing indigo on the holding and for the erection of an indigo factory within its limits.2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Purnea, by the owners of the ten-and-a-half annas share in the putni, to obtain an injunction restraining the carrying out of the proposed changes. It is unnecessary to consider the constitution of the suit. It is eno...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Har Shankar Partab Singh Vs. Lal Raghuraj Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR757
Collins, J.1. The appellants, who are the successors in title of the original plaintiff', appeal from a decision of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh in favour of the defendant Lal Raghuraj Singh, the present respondent, overruling a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Partabgarh in favour of the plaintiff. The matter in dispute is the right of succession to the Taluka of Shamspur and the question for decision is whether or not the respondent was validly adopted as the son of Lal Bishc-shar Bakhsh Singh by the widow of the latter, Thakurain Baijnath Kunwar. The suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Partabgarh by Balbhaddar Singh, the predecessor in title of the present appellants. The taluka in question was granted by Sanad to one Lal Surajpal Singh, brother of the respondent in 1872. Lal Surajpal Singh died childless and intestate on the 21st February 1892 and was succeeded by his widow, Thakurain Raghubans Kunwar, who took the estate of a Hindu widow...
Tag this Judgment!Kessowji Issur Vs. the Great Indian Peninsula Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR671
Robertson, J.1. The appellant was plaintiff in a suit against respondents, for damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained through their negligence. He was a passenger in a train of theirs from Bombay to Sion Station and his case was that, on the evening in question, the train overshot the platform at Sion and the passengers, on the implied invitation of the respondents, alighted where the train stopped ; that at this place it was dark and there were no lamps; that no warning was given to the appellant that the train had passed the platform or that special care must be taken in descending; that the appellant fell heavily and was seriously injured and for long disabled from business. There was no dispute as to the nature of the injuries.2. The case went to trial, the respondents denying liability; evidence was led at great length and the trial lasted 10 days. The result was that the learned Judge who tried the case gave the appellant Rs. 24,000 ; and it is sufficient at...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›