Mumbai Court April 1908 Judgments
Janglubai Shivappa Vs. Jetha Appaji Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR522
Chandavarkar, J.1. The question of Hindu law on this second appeal relates to the succession to the stridhan of an unmarried female, the competing claimants in the case being her maternal grand-mother and her father's mother's sister.2. The Subordinate Judge, in whose Court the suit was filed by the maternal grand-mother, decided it in her favour and awarded the claim.3. The District Judge, on appeal, has reversed the Subordinate Judge's decree, holding that the father's mother's sister, as a pitru-bandhu of the propositus, is entitled to succeed in preference to the maternal grand-mother, because the latter, being a matri-bandhu, can come in only in default of pitru-bandhus.4. Both the Courts below have dealt with the question of succession on the principle that he who is the nearest sapinda of the propositus, who in this case is an unmarried female, is entitled to inherit her stridhan. But the succession to such stridhan is regulated by a special rule which is contained in a text of ...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Bhaichand Vs. Hari Janardhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR615
Batchelor, J.1. The terms of the mortgage deed which in this case we have to consider are unquestionably of a somewhat doubtful character, and it is - therefore incumbent upon us to endeavour to ascertain the intention of the parties by scrutinizing that intention as disclosed in the deed itself : see Jafar Husen v. Ranjit Singh (1898) L.R.R.21 All. 4.2. Now when one comes to read the mortgage deed, the first impression it produces is that it is an instrument of usufructuary mortgage. That is what it purports to be; that is plainly its general intendment and effect and that is what it ought to be considered to be, unless there are very clear indications to the contrary.3. The only difficulty in the way of regarding it as a mere usufructuary mortgage is that there is a personal covenant to pay. That covenant is no doubt made on conditions, but still there is the promise to pay, and the question is whether that promise converts the deed into a deed of another character or not.4. We have ...
Tag this Judgment!The Poona City Municipalicy Vs. Ramchandra G. Karve
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR617
Batchelor, J.1. The facts in this case are sufficiently clear. The City Municipality of Poona, having determined to acquire a portion of the petitioner's house for the purpose of widening a road, served upon him a notice to that effect. In the course of correspondence the plaintiff manifested his willingness to allow the Municipality to acquire a part of the house but as the parties could not come to terms as to the price to be paid, it was agreed in accordance with Section 160 of the District Municipal Act that this question should be referred to arbitration. It was accordingly referred, and the arbitrators held certain proceedings. These proceedings were brought up on appeal to this Court in February 1906 when Sir Lawrence Jenkins and Mr. Justice Aston set aside the proceedings of the arbitrators. That being done, the petitioner then approached the District Judge under Sub-section (3) of Section 160 of the District Municipal Act requesting the District Judge himself to ascertain and ...
Tag this Judgment!Daji Abaji Khare Vs. Govind Narayen Bapat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR811
Macleod, J.1. By a decretal order of reference in this suit dated the 15th January 1903 it was inter alia referred to the Commissioner to take an account of the dealings and transaction. of the partnership in the pleadings from the time the factory started, namely 1893, to the 6th October, 1896. The accounts were taken by Mr. Modi, the Assistant Commissioner of this Court, whom I shall refer to hereafter for brevity's sake as the Com missioner. In 1907 he reported that the materials out of which the accounts had been prepared were incomplete and unreliable, Consequently it was impossible to take full and accurate accounts of the dealings and transaction of the partnership which the order of reference required him to do and that further directions were necessary. The defendants filed exceptions to this-report which were heard before me on the 13th June 1907. I directed the Commissioner that there were sufficient materials before him to frame an account and sent the case back to him. Aga...
Tag this Judgment!Pawadewa Vs. Venkatesh Hanmant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR559
Batchelor, J.1. This was a suit to recover possession of certain property and the facts found are that the property originally belonged to one Malam, who died leaving a widow Bandeva and three sons, the eldest being Chanbasapa. All three sons were born deaf and dumb, and as they were therefore disqualified from inheriting, the widow Bandeva succeeded to the estate of her husband. In October 1900 she sold the property in suit to the plaintiffs.2. After Malam's death, Chanbasapa, the disqualified son, married, and a son, defendant 2, was born to him before the widow's sale to the plaintiffs. This son, who admittedly suffers under no disqualification, was not conceived till after the inheritance had passed to Bandeva.3. The plaintiffs suing on the sale-deed were met by various defences, as that the sale was fraudulent; that it was made without consideration; that it was made without necessity; and that the sons of Malam were not born deaf and dumb. On all these defences the findings of th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Shambhulal Jivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR565
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of Shambhulal Jivandas, who with four others, was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Thana with a jury. The charges against the accused Shambhu were that he had on 7th May 1906 caused to be forged a sale deed in the names of three men Gangia, Balia and Gopalia, sons of Zipria ; that he had caused the accused Nos. 3 and 4 falsely to sign the said deed as attesting witnesses; and that on 24th May he caused the false sale deed to be registered by the Sub-Registrar of Dahanu by means of personation effected through his mehta, the fifth accused. The jury acquitted all the accused, except the fifth accused, whom they found guilty, under Section 82 (c) of the Registration Act read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, of abetment of false personation in the proceedings before the Sub-Registrar. The Sessions Judge, accepting the verdict of the jury, convicted the fifth accused of the offence stated a...
Tag this Judgment!The Bank of Bombay Vs. Raghunathji Tarachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR668
Heaton, J.1. These are two suits by the Bank of Bombay on two promissory notes or hundis made on the 13th November 1907 and payable in 60 or 63days. The defendants are: (1) the firm of Raghunathji Tarachand, in the name of which the notes are made and by whom they were dishonoured ; (2) the heirs of the person by name Hirabhai Ghelabhai to whom or to whose order the notes were payable, who endorsed them to the Bank of Bombay and obtained money on them from the Bank. The latter defendants do not appear. The first defendant obtained leave to defend and pleaded in substance that though the notes were signed by Narotamdas the son of Gordhan, yet that he had no authority to sign with the name of the firm, and did not sign them for the firm ; that the notes were signed by Narotam only when entreated by Hirabhai; that he received no consideration and did not know he was incurring any liability; that they were obtained by fraud and that the Bank through their agent had notice of the fraud.2. I...
Tag this Judgment!Rukhanbai Vs. Adamji Shaik Rajbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR366
Beaman, J.1. This was an administration suit a decretal order was passed referring it to the Commissioner to take the usual accounts, When the matter came before the Assistant Commissioner Mr. Modi, it appears from his notes, (the substantial correctness of all the facts contained in which is not disputed) that with the object of saving parties considerable delay and expense, he proposed that they should leave the settlement of all matters in dispute between them in his hands. All the parties consented. From Mr. Modi's record, it is clear that they then agreed unreservedly and without any qualification to allow him to deal summarily with all the disputed matters and to draft (as he calls it) a decree by which they were to be finally bound. He says he fully explained every term of this proposal to the parties and in particular impressed upon the defendants that even should his decree award them no more than a rupee they were to be bound by it. To these terms all the parties assented. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Dalip Singh Vs. ChaudhraIn Nawal Kunwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR600
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from, a Judgment and Decree of the High Court at Allahabad, bearing date the 17th November 1902, which reversed those of the Subordinate Judge of Meerut, dated the 23rd December 1899. The substantial question as to which the Courts in India have differed, and which their Lordships have to decide, is whether a certain deed of mortgage, bearing date the 10th January 1889, represents a genuine transaction or a fictitious one.2. The mortgagors were one Chaudhri Partab Singh and his two sons, one of whom was then a minor. The subject-matter of the mortgage was land and houses at Meerut. At the time of the mortgage Partab was indebted to several persons, partly on mortgages and partly on other securities, the principal creditors being one Munna Lal, the heirs of one Shibban Lal, and one Kishan Sahai, and it is clear that at that time Partab was in money difficulties.3. The mortgage in controversy purports to be in favour of a lady named Nawal Kunwar, for...
Tag this Judgment!Laxmanlal K. Pandit Vs. Mulshankar Pitambardas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR553
Batchelor, J.1. This was a suit for rent claimed by the plaintiff for a period of two years with interest. The claim was met by a denial that the property belonged to the plaintiff and the defendant explained that, while a criminal prosecution was hanging over his head his pleader Laxmishankar stood bail for his appearance in Criminal Court; and that to indemnify Laxmishankar against any loss which he as bail might suffer, a nominal sale deed and a nominal rent note were passed to Laxmishankar.2. Various issues were raised and decided and ultimately in July 1907, the case came before a Divisional Bench of this Court and an interlocutory judgment was delivered remanding the case back for a trial of certain issues which had arisen. The District Judge's findings upon these issues have now been returned to us, and for present purposes it will be sufficient to notice three of these findings ; they are :-(1). That the defendant executed the sale deed Exhibit 49 and the rent note to ensure th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›