Mumbai Court January 1908 Judgments
Mahant Biharidasji Vs. Parshottamdas Ramdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-30-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR293
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This application is made to us under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and it arises out of an application made to the Subordinate Judge under Section 373 of the Code.2. The whole difficulty arises from the omission to observe what are the precise provisions of Section 373. It contemplates a withdrawal not of the suit but from the suit, and such a withdrawal may be either with or without liberty to bring a fresh suit. If a party desires to withdraw from the suit with such liberty, then he must apply to the Court to permit him so to withdraw. If he does not desire to have that liberty, then he can withdraw of his own motion and no order of the Court is necessary.3. Now in this case the Subordinate Judge has passed an order in these terms; ''The suit may be withdrawn. No permission need be granted as the amount in dispute is very small compared with the main corpus of the endowment. Plaintiff is to bear all costs and to pay all costs. No special reason ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vasudeo Vs. Krishnarao Vasudeo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR279
Chandavarkar, J.1. We are asked to reverse the order of the District Judge in appeal upon the ground that he ought not to have removed the guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act. In Bindaji v. Mathurabai LIR (1906) 30 Bom. 165: 7 Bom. L.R. 809 this Court expressed an opinion in these terms. ' The reason of the rule that when the joint family originally comprises an adult, a guardian of the property cannot be appointed, (in our opinion) involves the conclusion that as soon as there is an adult co-parcener any guardianship of the property previously constituted either ceases or is liable to cease, for then there is no longer any property in respect of which there can be a guardian.' No doubt this was a mere dictum which was not strictly speaking necessary for the purposes of the decision in that case. But it was an opinion which appears to have been expressed after a careful consideration of the law upon the point, and we accept it as laying down the correct law in such cases.2. Wher...
Tag this Judgment!Balaji Raoji Kolhe Vs. Gangadhar Ramkrishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR276
Chandavaekar, J.1. We are unable to agree with the two Courts below in holding that the deed on which the appellant sued is a lease and not, what it expressly purports to be a mortgage. The description of it by the parties as a mortgage deed is, indeed, not conclusive; but the terms of it leave no doubt that the land specified in it was intended to be a security for the payment of Rs. 187 paid to the executant by the party in whose favour the deed was executed. The deed says.--'when you receive the proceeds, according to what is stated above,' (i.e. by cultivation of the property during twenty-one years), 'the said amount of rupees borrowed from you is to be (considered) as paid up.' That plainly means that the land was to be regarded as security for the debt. Then it proceeds : 'nothing is then to be due from us'-that is, the amount of Rs. 187 was treated as a debt, which, if satisfied out of the proceeds of the land, was to be treated as liquidated. So also the deed says further on :...
Tag this Judgment!Nana Aba Katkar Vs. Sheku Andu Bokade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR330
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This application for revision arises out of a suit commenced on the 24th February 1906 under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act 111 of 1876. On the 29th of October 1906 the Mamlatdars' Courts Act II of 1906 came into operation, and by Section 2 of that Act, the Mamlatdars' Courts Act It of 1876 was repealed.2. On the 2Gth of January 1907 the Mamlatdar dismissed the suit with costs.3. On the 12th March 1907, the plaintiff presented a petition for revision to the Collector of Sholapur.4. On the 6th of April 1907 the Collector held that he had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.5. The plaintiff considering himself aggrieved by the Collector's order has presented this application to the High Court for revision.6. Under the (sic) Courts Act of 1876 the Collector had no power of revision.7. By Section 23 of the Marnlatdurs' Courts Act of 1906 it is provided as follows :-'The Collector may call for and examine the record of any suit under this Act.' Section 7 shows ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Indian Arbitration Act
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR351
Davar, J.1. The respondent, Mr. Ahmedbhoy Habibbhoy, is the owner of certain premises situated at Fergusson Road, whereon previous to October 1906 there was a mill known as the Victory Mills. This property was insured by the respondent with nineteen. Insurance Companies for various amounts against loss or damage by fire. On the 14th of October 1906 there was a fire on the mill premises and loss and damage was caused to the property insured. The respondent made his claims against the Companies. By nineteen different agreements made by each of the Companies on the one part and Mr. Ahmedbhoy on the other part thematters were referred to the arbitration of Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Dwarkadas Dharamsey.2. The arbitration proceedings having reached a certain stage a difference of opinion arose between Mr. Chamier, who was conducting the case on behalf of the Companies, and Mr. Hormasji, who represented the respondents, as to the admissibility of certain evidence tendered by the respondent. After...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpatrao Moroji Vs. Vamanrao Shamrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR210
Beaman, J.1. The material facts, which are all undisputed, are that four brothers Krishnanath, Vinayak, Ganapatrao and Narayen were left an estate, share and share alike. This they managed together; no division of the estate into lots was made. Krishnanath, as the eldest, managed till his death, leaving a widow Luxmibai; then Vinayak managed till his death, leaving a widow Satyabhamabai; and thereafter Ganapatrao managed till Luxmibai brought her suit to have it declared that she was entitled to her deceased husband Krishnanath's one-fourth of the whole property movable and immovable. Ganapatrao resisted the claim on the ground that the four brothers had constituted a joint Hindu family. The Court held that they had not, and that the property was no more than a property held by the four objects of the testator's bounty, in severalty; and decreed that the said property be now separated, the shares defined,and assigned to Luxmibai and Satyabhamabai, the widows of Krishnanath and Vinayak,...
Tag this Judgment!Abdullakhan Usmankhan Vs. Khanmiya Arabkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR380
Chandavarkar, J.1. The lower appellate Court has found upon the evidence that the appellant, Abdullakhan valad Usman khan, is the heir of the deceased Salekhan, and that as such he would have been entitled to the property in dispute, were it not that his right is barred on theground of res judicata,.2. That ground is based upon Suit No. 265 of 1901, brought by the first respondent, Khanmiya, claiming as the heir of the deceased Salekhan, against several persons, of whom the appellant was defendant No. 7 and the second respondent was defendant No. 13. The first respondent prayed in that suit for partition of the properties specified in his plaint and for allotment to him of Salekhan's share therein.3. The property now in dispute was not included in the plaint. The appellant in his defence denied the first respondent's heirship and asserted himself to be Salekhan's heir.4. The Subordinate Judge having raised several issues, of which one was whether the first respondent or the appellant w...
Tag this Judgment!Baijnath Gaenka Vs. Ramdhari Chowdhry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR253
Arthur Wilson, J. 1. These two consolidated appeals arise out of two suits, one brought by Mangni Ram, the other by Jowhuri Lal, to enforce a right of pre-emption in respect of a share in certain properties comprised in taluka Rasulpur Bhatowni.2. By conveyances, dated 28th January 1891 and 9th July 1897 Mangni and Jowhuri had become the owners in equal shares of twelve annas of the property. The remaining four annas belonged to the respondent. Anupbati Koeri, who on the 17th December 1897 sold those four annas to Nirbhoy Chowdhry; and that is the sale against which the right of pre-emption is claimed. It has been found that Jowhuri first heard of the sale on 20th December 1897, and that thereupon he at once made the immediate claim to pre-empt which the law requires. Mangni first heard of the sale on the 5th of January 1898, and at once made his immediate claim. No question therefore arises with regard to the first claim by each of the two men. The principal controversy between the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Karsandas Dharamsey Vs. Gangabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR184
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sues as a member of a joint undivided Hindu family, alleging that his great grand-father Mulji Jetha, with his son Soonderdas Mulji founded the family fortunes, acquiring great wealth, and that they were joint in food worship and estate; that on the birth of Soonderdas's eldest son, Dharamsey the joint family consisted of Mulji Jetha, Soonderdas Mulji and Dharamsey Soonderdas; that the various settlements and devises made by Mulji Jetha, Soonderdas Mulji and subsequently by Dharamsey Soonderdas and Gordhandas Soonderdas, were all invalid and beyond their competence, as purporting to dispose of joint family property, in the first instance, and afterwards of joint ancestral family property. That on the birth of Gordhandas, he too acquired by birth a right in the joint family property, and after him his son, since deceased and the plaintiff who is the son of Dharamsey Soonderdas.2. The defendants representing generally, the estate of Gordhandas, demur, that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Waman Dhanraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR171
Chandavarkar, J.1. The evidence in the case is not so clear as to warrant our upsetting the order of the Magistrate so far as the offence charged against the accused under Sub-clause (6) of Clause (1) of Section 43 of the Abkari Act is concerned. The question then is, whether the accused ought to be convicted under Section 47 of that Act. The evidence establishes the fact, and it is not disputed, that liquor was found in the shop at Jalgaon in respect of which the accused held a license, and that, that liquor was larger in quantity than was authorised by his license.2. It is also proved and in fact it is admitted before us that it was accused No. 1 in whose name the permit was taken for the liquor; that the permit authorised its being sent to the shop of the accused at Kandori and that, accused No. 5 was employed in the matter and acted as the servant of accused No. 1.3. Under these circumstances Section 53 of the Abkari Act required accused No. 1 to prove satisfactorily that he was no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »