Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR1049
Chandavarkar, J.1. Both the lower Courts have held that where a Hindu in this Presidency dies, leaving him surviving two or more widows as heirs, none of them has the right to alienate her life-interest in the property without some necessity justifying the alienation or without the consent of her co-widow or co-widows, as the case may be. And in support of that view they rely upon certain passages in Mr. Mayne's Hindu Law and Usage, Sixth Edition, Section 554, page 732. The passage runs as follows :-On the principle of joint tenancy with survivorship, no alienation by one widow, even though she is the manager at the time, can have any validity against the rights of the others without their consent or an established necessity arising under circumstances which rendered it impossible to seek for consent.This means that such an alienation cannot bind the interest or right of the other widow or widows-it does not mean that it cannot bind the interest of the widow alienating. Mr. Mayne, in s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR923
Davar, J.1. The petitioner Dhaklibai, the maternal grandmother of two orphan girls named Goolbai and Lilbai of the respective ages of 12 and 8, prays that she or some other fit and proper person may be appointed guardian of the person and property of the minors. The minors' mother, Muktabai, daughter of the petitioner, died six years ago. Their father Gunpatrao died in the year 1905. During his lifetime Gunpatrao lived with his wife and children in the house of his father Nanabhai Raghunath. Nanabhai's daughter Shantibai became a widow five years ago and come and lived with her father from the time she became a widow. The minors have an elder sister named Zulbai. She is now married but till she was married she lived with her sisters in her grandfather Nanabhai's house. Nanabhai got her married at an expense of about Rs. 2000. Nanabhai died on the 14th of May 1907. Till the 14th of June 1907 the minors were living with their paternal aunt Shantibai. On that day the elder minor Goolbai w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR1062
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated the 25th June 1904, of the High Court of Bombay sitting on appeal from a judgment and decree passed, on the 26th February 1903, by Russell J. in exercise of the ordinary original civil jurisdiction of the same Court.2. Most of the facts now material to the case are not disputed. On the 8th April 1896 the first respondent (hereinafter called the mortgagor) executed a mortgage of certain properties, including premises in Cowasjee Patel Tank Road, in the City of Bombay, which are the subject of this suit and appeal, in favour of the other respondents (hereinafter called the mortgagees) to secure an advance of Rs. 30,000 and interest.3. The mortgage was of the English type and contained a power of sale in an ordinary form. A proviso followed that-' Upon any sale purporting to be made in pursuance of the aforesaid power ... the purchaser ... shall not be bound to see or inquire whether any such default has been made ......
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR1104
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Madras, dated the 13th March 1905, modifying those of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam, of the 17th February 1902.2. The controversy arises out of a mortgage executed on the 22nd September 1883, by the first and third appellants in favour of Krishna Mudaliar Avergal, to secure Rs. 8,000 and interest as stipulated. The mortgage was of the kind long known as a mortgage bond or hypothecation bond and now described in the Transfer of Property Act as a simple mortgage.3. In the course of a partition suit, relating to the estate of the mortgagee, the first respondent was appointed receiver of that estate and as such he instituted the present suit, joining as defendants the two actual mortgagors and their respective sons which four persons are now the appellants. The object of the suit, so far as it need now be noticed, was to enforce payment of the amount due under the mortgage, by sale of the mortgaged p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR889
Chandavarkar, J.1. The claim allowed by the lower Court in favour of the respondent is one for maintenance on the basis of an agreement between her and the appellants. In the plaint she alleges that under the agreement she is entitled to an annual payment of Rs. 52 for her maintenance out of a cash allowance which is received by the appellant from Government. It is not disputed before us and in fact both the Courts below have held that the cash allowance falls within the definition of a pension or grant of money or of land revenue within the meaning of those terms in the Pension Aot XXIII of 1871. If this is a suit relating to a pension or grant of money or land revenue, the suit could not be taken cognisance of without a certificate under Section 4 of the Pensions Act. It is argued that this claim arises from an agreement between the parties. The words of that section are, however, wide enough to include any suit to enforce such a claim. Provided it relates to a pension or grant of mo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR950
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. In this suit Narayan Gopal sued Bhagabai, wife of Biharilal, to redeem the property in dispute from the defendant on payment of whatever might be found due after accounts were taken by setting off profits against the interest.2. The plaintiff stated that part of the consideration, viz. Rs. 443-12-9 having been decreed, but the leave of the Court not having been obtained, so much of the mortgage bond was void.3. The Subordinate Judge directed redemption on payment of a certain sum.4. The lower appellate Court, however, reversed his decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout upon the ground that the mortgage in question was void.5. Two appeals were filed against that decree, one, viz., 361 of 1906 by the defendant, on the ground (inter alia) that the mortgage was not void ; the other, No. 373 of 1906, by the plaintiff on the ground that the mortgage bond having been held to be void, he ought to have been put in possession qf the proper...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR1232
Batty, J.1. This is a reference made under Section 19 of the Land Acquisition Act by the Collector of Bombay on application made under Section 18 of that Act.2. It relates to an area of 85, 799 sq. yards to the West of Parel Road. This area consists of four plots: the largest admeasures 71,714 sq. yards. It has a frontage of 1.268 feet on the Parel Road, which lies to the East and is about 500 feet deep from East to West, It is convenient to refer to this longest plot as the Front land.3. On the West of this Front Land there is a Government passage running from North to South approximately parallel with the Parel Road. Beyond this Government passage on its West, lie the remaining three plots, containing respectively 4577. 5747 and 3761 sq. yards.4. The acquisition of the entire area was made under the Act for the G. I. P. Railway Company, the Notification under Section 6 for the back land being No. 5988 of 3rd September 1903 published in the Bombay Government Gazette, Part I, page 1073...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR932
Chandavarkar, J.1. The question referred to this Court by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate is as follows:-'Did the act of the accused under the circumstances described mean 'erection or re-erection' within the meaning of Section 349 C of the Municipal Act or a 're-construction' within the meaning of Section 342'. We think that it is a question of fact which must be determined on the evidence and circumstances of each case, Addressing ourselves to the question of law arising in the case before us it is this :-what is the meaning of 're-erection ' or ''re-construction ' as these terms are used in Sections 349 C and 342 of the Act respectively. In Section 349 the words are 'shall be erected or re-crected ' which means that to erect a building is different from re-erecting it. The word 'erect' is defined by the legislature in Section 337 (2). There is no definition of re-erection. Re-erection must mean something which is excluded from the definition of 'erecting a building' in para ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR942
Russell, Acting C.J.1. In the year 1902 the plaintiff herein had a grain shop at Poona and the defendants are the G.I.P. Railway. During May 1902 the plaintiff's agent Avent to Wadi to buy grain which he sent to Poona for sale there. The plaintiff sues to recover from the defendants Rs. 655-11-0 and interest thereon as damages amounting to Rs. 174-2-9 in all Rs. 829-13-9. The sum of Rs. 655-11-0 is in the plaint sought to be recovered as the excess amount claimed and received by the Railway Company at Poona in respect of various parcels of grain sent from Wadi to Poona on different dates in June and July 1902, the details of which are set out in the plaint. The dates of the excess amounts being received are as follow :-Rs. 187-5-0 received 12th July 1902Rs. 62-6-0 received 16th July 1902Rs. 406-0-0 received 25th July 1902----------Rs. 655-11-0.2. The plaint was filed on 10th July 1905.3. The learned Judge of the Small Cause Court at Poona raised the following preliminary issue. Whether...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR1028
Russell, Acting C.J.1. An important question is raised in this case as to the construction of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act II of 1906.2. The suit was brought in Mamlatdar's Court of Dohad for possession of a certain house in the town and a decree passed that the plaintiff should be restored to immediate possession of the said house, with costs to be paid by the defendant.3. The suit was filed on the 24th September 1906; evidence taken on the 22nd, 24th and 26th October and then the case was adjourned for argument.4. On the 29th October 1906, the Bombay Mamlatdars' Courts Act II of 1906 received the assent of the Governor General in Council and on the 17th of November 1906 judgment was delivered. On the 29th November 1906, possession was given under the decree and on the 22nd January 1907 the Mamlatdar was informed by the Collector of the passing of the new Act which repealed the whole of the previous Act, Bombay Act III of 1876, without any saving as to pending proceedings.5. A rule was ...
Tag this Judgment!