Mumbai Court July 1908 Judgments
Dadabhai Muse Valli Vs. Dadabhai Valli Abhram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR745
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This is a suit for redemption in which both parties are agriculturists, and there is no doubt that the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act apply.2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of that Act the lower Courts have gone into the origin and nature of the transaction which was upon the face of it a usufructuary mortgage to secure payment of Rs. 2,499, and upon a consideration of the history of the transaction they have come to the conclusion that Rs. 2,499, is the true consideration for the mortgage.3. It is provided by Section 13 of the Act that ' when the Court enquires into the history and merits of the case under Section 12, it shall notwithstanding any agreement as to setting off the profits of the mortgaged property without an account in lieu of interest, open the account between the parties from the commencement of the transaction and take that account according to the rules specified in Sub-sections (a) to (f); and when the acco...
Tag this Judgment!Lalbhai Tricamlal Vs. the Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR821
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiffs as trustees of Godiji Maharaj's temple in Bombay are the owners of a house at the corner of Chakla Street and Coombharwada Cross Lane, consisting of a ground floor and one upper floor. The rooms on the ground floor are used for shops and the rooms on the upper floor are partly used for living purposes and partly for storing goods. The gross rental is Rs. 316.2. On the 6th January 1908 the plaintiffs were served with a notice from the defendant, the Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bombay (Ex. A), requiring them, under Section 354 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act 1888. to pull down the whole of the first floor of the said house including the flooring and the roof and pull down or secure the remainder of the said structure, on the ground that the structure was in a ruinous condition, likely to fall and dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by the same. The plaintiffs in consequence of this above notice instructed their Engineer, ...
Tag this Judgment!Lalbhai Tricamlal and ors. Vs. the Municipal Commissioner for the City ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1908
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.361
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiffs as trustees of Grodiji Maharaj's templein Bombay are the owners of a house at the corner of Chakla Street and Cumbharwada Cross Lane, consisting of a ground floor and one upper floor. The rooms on the ground floor are used for shops and the rooms on the upper floor are partly used for living purposes and partly for storing goods. The gross rental is Rs. 316.2. On the 6th January 1908, the plaintiffs were served with a notice from the defendant, the Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bombay (Exhibit A), requiring them, under Section 354 of the City of Bombay Muincipal Act, 1888, to pull down the whole of the first floor of the said house including the flooring and the roof and pull down or secure the remainder of the said structure, on the ground that the structure was in a ruinous condition, likely to fall and dangerous to any person occupying, resorting to or passing by the same. The plaintiffs in consequence of this above notice instructed their Engin...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhausing Dhumalsing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR759
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The petitioner, with eight other persons, was charged with rioting and causing hurt to the complainant under Sections 147, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code, in the Court of the Second Class Magistrate of Yeola, and was convicted under Sections 147 and 325 of the Code and sentenced to simple imprisonment for fifteen days.2. The petitioner then appealed to the First Class Magistrate who altered the conviction to one under Section 323 and reduced the sentence to five days' simple imprisonment and under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code directed that the appellant should execute a bond of Rs. 100 to keep the peace for one year.3. The petitioner now applies to us in revision to set aside the order for execution of a bond contending that the Court had no jurisdiction to add such an order to the sentence of the Second Class Magistrate.4. We cannot accept that contention. Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code authorises such an order whenever any person is...
Tag this Judgment!Mahamad Muse Vs. Bagas Amanji Umar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR742
Batchelor, J.1. Although in general the decision of a Court upon one document is not conclusive as to the character of another document, yet the instrument with which we are here concerned, namely Ex. 25, bears such close and intimate resemblance to the deed which was construed in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Tukaram v. Ramchand I L R (1901) 26 Bom. 252: 3 Bom. L.R. 778, that in our opinion we are bound to follow that decision. No substantial difference that we can discover exists between the two documents. Here, as there, the relation of debtor and creditor was established prior to the execution of the deed. Here, as there, the creditor is to appropriate the income of the land towards the liquidation of the pre-existing debt; and when the creditor has managed the land for the prescribed period and appropriated the produce, the debtor will understand that his debt has been paid off, and that he is free to resume possession of the land. There is no mention ofany premium or p...
Tag this Judgment!Kalianji Ranchhod Vs. Bezanji Nassarwanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR754
Batchelor, J.1. The question before us is whether the property in dispute was self-acquired property of Bhagwan. Ordinarily no doubt the presumption is that the property would be joint, but the learned Judge below has found that this presumption is displaced by the evidence in this particular case.The item of evidence upon which he mainly relies in support of his finding is purshottam's attestation of the deed of gift of 1885 executed by that father Bhagwan in favour of Purshottam's son Dullabh. In that deed, which is not a lengthy instrument, the property is more than once and emphatically described as the self-acquisition of Bhagwan. It is no doubt unquestionable law that a mere attestation by a relative does not necessarily import consent to the terms of the document attested : see Raj Lukhee Dabeav. Gokool Chunder Chowdhry (1869) 13 M.I.A. 209 But no one here seeks to contest this proposition of law; and what the learned Judge has done is that he has found that over and above the m...
Tag this Judgment!Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay Vs. Karsondas Nathu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR688
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal by the Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay against an award of the Tribunal of Appeal appointed under Section 48(3) of Bombay Act IV of 1898.2. The area of the land taken up is 5576 square yards and the Special Collector awarded a total sum of 65, 511-2-0. On reference to the Tribunal, the Tribunal has increased that award to a total sum of Rs. 87,798. This works out to an average of Rs. 15-11-0 per square yard according to the present appellants, and to a few annas less according to the respondents. With this small difference we are not further concerned, and the real question before us-when all is said and done-amounts to this-Is the allowance of Rs. 15-11-0 per square yard shown to be excessive ?3. Apart from the general principle which restrains a Court of Civil Appeal from interfering with any decree unless it is satisfied that that decree is wrong, we have here two special considerations which should deter us from lightly disturbin...
Tag this Judgment!Sankaralinga Nadan Vs. Raja Rajeswara Dorai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1908
Reported in: (1908)10BOMLR781
Robertson, J.1. The question between the parties is 'whether the appellants and the caste to which they belong have legal right to enter and worship in a temple at Kamudi. This temple is dedicated to the worship of Shiva, and the customary ceremonies of Hindu worship are there carried on. It is common ground between the disputants that the appellants represent a caste called the Nadar or Shanar caste. It is alleged by the respondents that the presence of persons belonging to the appellants' caste is repugnant to the religious principles of the Hindu worship of Shiva and to the sentiments of the caste of Hindus who worship in this temple, and that it is contrary to custom in this temple. Both Courts in India have decided against the appellants, the judgment of the Subordinate Judge discussing the question in great detail and with much research, and the High Court at Madras resting their decision upon extremely comprehensible and cogent grounds.2. The controversy touches, but does not in...
Tag this Judgment!The Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay Vs. Karsandas N ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1908
Reported in: 1Ind.Cas.451
1. This is an appeal by the Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay against an award of the Tribunal of Appeal appointed under Section 48(3) of Bombay Act IV of 1898.2. The area of the land taken up is 5576 square yards and the Special Collector awarded a total sum of Rs. 65,511-2-0. On reference to the Tribunal, the Tribunal has increased that award to a total sum of Rs. 87,798. This works out to an average of Rs. 15-11-0 per square yard according to the present appellants, and to a few annas less according to the respondents. With this small difference we are not further concerned, and the real question before us--when all is said and done--amounts to this: Is the allowance of Rs. 15-11-0 per square yard shown to be excessive?3. Apart from the general principle which restrains a Court of Civil Appeal from interfering with any decree unless it is satisfied that that decree is wrong, we have here two special considerations which should deter us from lightly disturbing the aw...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›