Mumbai Court October 1908 Judgments
Adam Umar Sale Vs. Bapu Bavaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1128
Batchelor, J.1. This appeal raises a question as to the construction of the Bhagdari Act, Bombay Act V of 1862. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of a parcel of land alleging that it formed part of a bhag which was his ancestral property, and that in 1863 it and some other land were sold, in contravention of the Bhagdari Act, by his ancestors and those of defendants 4 and 5 to the ancestors of others of the defendants. It is admitted that the land in suit is an unrecognised subdivision of a bhag, and it is found as a fact by the Court below that the sale to the defendants' predecessors took place in 1863, that is, after the coming into force of the Bhagdari Act.2. The learned District Judge has allowed the plaintiffs' claim on the grounds that the sale of 1863 was void under Section 3 of the Bhagdari Act, and that no adverse possession of the land could be acquired by the first defendant so as to bar the suit under the law of limitation. Though other questions have been slightly...
Tag this Judgment!Gangashankar Prabhashankar Vs. Badhar Madhbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1163
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The two questions referred for our opinion are:-(1) Whether it is necessary to pay batta to any agriculturist defendant summoned to be examined under Section 7 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act ?(2) If it is, whether the same is payable by the plaintiff and whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on failure to pay it ?2. We answer both questions in the negative....
Tag this Judgment!Adam Umar Sale Vs. Bapu Bawaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.663
1. This appeal raises a question as to the construction of the Bhagdari Act (Bombay Act V of 1862). The plaintiff sued to recover possession of a parcel of land alleging that it formed part of a bhag which was his ancestral property, and that in 1863 it and some other land were sold, in contravention of the Bhagdari Act, by his ancestors and those of defendants Nos. 4 and 5 to the ancestors of others of the defendants. It is admitted that the land in suit is an unrecognised sub-division of a bhag, and it is found as a fact by the Court below that the sale to the defendants' predecessors took place in 1863, that is, after the coming into force of the Bhagdari Act,2. The learned District Judge has allowed the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that the sale of 1863 was void under Section 3 of the Bhagdari Act, and that no adverse possession of the land could be acquired by the first defendant so as to bar the suit under the law of limitation. Though other questions have been slightly discu...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Balu Salaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1126
1. The law enunciated in Emperor v. Dhondu (1904) 6 Bom. L.R. 255 ought, we think, to be followed. It is in accordance with the rule of construction applicable to an Act such as Act XIII of 1859. That rule is well explained by Lord Herschell in Darby Corporation v. Derbyshire County Council [1897] A.C. 550. The action there was a proceeding in a County Court under the 10th section of the Rivers Pollution Act, 1876, under which a County Court Judge had power to order any person to abstain from polluting a river and the said person might be required to perform that duty in the manner specified in the order. If the order were disobeyed, the County Court Judge had jurisdiction to impose a penalty not exceeding 50 a day as he should think reasonable. As Lord Hersohell says in his judgment, the proceeding in which a County Court Judge orders any person to abstain from polluting the river and requires him to perform that duty in a specified manner is not a penal proceeding, because ' all it c...
Tag this Judgment!Ardeshir Bejanji Surti Vs. Syed Sirdar Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1146
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree passed by Russell J. in Suit No. 159 of 1907 brought by the appellant Ardeshir Bejonji Surti, to recover from the first respondent, Syed Sirdar AliKhan, moneys alleged to have been placed by the third respondent with the first respondent as deposit or security for the due performance of the covenants and conditions of a lease (dated the 3rd of October, 1906) of certain premises known as Watson's Annexe, by the former to the latter for a period of ten years commencing from the 1st of April 1906. The appellant claimed the amount under an assignment dated the 8th of January 1907 from the third respondent, Ruttonji Sorabji Munshi. In the plaint he alleged that the lease had been determined by the first respondent re-entering the premises on the 5th of January 1907, and that on such determination the right accrued to him (the appellant) as the third respondent's assignee to recover the amount of the deposit less certain sums payable by th...
Tag this Judgment!Ardesir Bejonji Surti Vs. Syed Sirdar Ali Khan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1908
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.804
1. This is an appeal from the decree passed by Russell, J., in Suit No. 159 of 1907 brought by the appellant Ardeshir Bejonji Surti, to recover from the first respondent, Syed Sirdar Ali Khan, moneys alleged to have been placed by the third respondent with the first respondent as deposit or security for the due performance of the covenants and conditions of a lease (dated the 3rd of October 1906) of certain premises known as Watson's Annexe, by the former to the latter for a period of ten years commencing from the 1st of April 1906. The appellant claimed the amount under an assignment dated the 8th of January 1907 from the third respondent, Ruttonji Sorabji Munshi. In the plaint he alleged that the lease had been determined by the first respondent re-entering the premises on the 5th of January 1907, and that on such determination the right accrued to him (the appellant) as the third respondent's assignee to recover the amount of the deposit less certain sums payable by the third respon...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Balu Saluji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.387
1. The law enunciated in Emperor v. Dhondu 33 B. 22: 6 Bom. L.R. 255: (1909) 1 L.C. 378 (ante) ought, we think, to be followed. It is in accordance with the rule of construction applicable to an Act, such as Act XIII of 1859. That rule is well explained by Lord Herschell in Derby Corporation v. Derbyshire County Council (1897) A.C. 550 : 66 L.J.Q.B. 701: 77 L.T. 107: 46 W.R. 48: 62 J.P. 4 H.L.. The action there was a proceeding in the County Court under the 10th section of the Rivers Pollution Act, 1876, under which a County Court Judge had power to order any person to abstain from polluting a river and the said person might be required to perform that duty in the manner specified in the order. If the order were disobeyed, the County Court Judge had jurisdiction to impose a penalty not exceeding 50 a day, as he should think reasonable.2. As Lord Herschell says in his judgment, the proceeding in which the County Court Judge orders any person to abstain from polluting the river and requi...
Tag this Judgment!Putlibai Vs. Madhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.659
1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff has been validly adopted as a son to his deceased maternal grandfather Sadashiv. The question has been answered in the affirmative in the lower Court.2. The material facts are as follows:3. The plaintiff is the natural son of Anna and Bhagi. Bhagi is the daughter of Sadashiv. Anna, Bhagi and the plaintiff lived with Sadashiv, Bhagi says that her father intended from the first to adopt the plaintiff, that her husband asked him to do so and when attacked with plague told Sadashiv that the boy was given to him. This story is highly probable for Sadashiv was a well-to-do man possessed of property worth Rs. 25,000 or Rs. 30,000 while Anna had no property whatever. At intervals of a few months the deaths occurred of, first, Anna, then, Sadashiv and lastly, Bhowani, Bhagi's mother. Sadashiv had another wife Putli, the defendant in this suit. After Sadashiv's death Putli and Bhagi and the plaintiff lived together in Sadashiv's house until...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Harkisandas Haridas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1056
1. In this case the complainant by his pleader presented a Razinama to the Court which stated that the offence charged which is one of hurt had been compounded.2. The Court, however, declined to accept the Razinama apparently because it intended to institute an inquiry as to whether the charge was not frivolous or vexatious. That inquiry could only be instituted under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code and it could only be instituted for the purpose of deciding whether compensation should be paid to the accused person.3. Proceedings under that section seem to us to be inapplicable in a case where the accused person has himself by agreement with the prosecutor arrived at a settlement and been a party to the compounding of the offence. We, therefore, think that the Magistrate ought to have accepted the Razinama, as the parties were entitled under Section 345 to compound the offence unconditionally, and we therefore direct that the compounding of the offence be recorded by the Mag...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Mani Vs. Khimchand Gokaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR1037
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Surat in Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 1908 of the District file. That application was one in which the District Judge considered the recommendation of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat that the defendant Khimchand should be appointed a receiver in a suit No. 35 of 1907, and, in case of the recommendation not being accepted, that the Nazir of his Court should be appointed.2. The District Judge having considered, the recommendations refused to authorise the Judge to appoint either of the persons so recommended.3. The application was made to him under the proviso to Section 505 of the Civil Procedure Code, and under that section he had power to authorise the Subordinate Judge to appoint one of the persons recommended and he had also power to pass any other order. The order which he decided to pass was to refuse to allow the appointment of any receiver at all.4. We are of opinion that that was an o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »