Mumbai Court October 1909 Judgments
Jethabhai Kevalbhai Vs. Chhotalal Chunilal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.594
1. The material facts of this case are as follows: Gordhan Ambaidas died in Jane 1896, leaving him surviving, his wife Fulkor, his daughter Rukhmini, her husband Chunilal, and two grandsons, children of Chunilal.2. By his Will, dated the 27th of May 1896, he appointed Chunilal and Fulkor his executor and executrix, and after charging his estate with the maintenance of his widow, daughter and grandsons and providing for the performance of certain funeral ceremonies, directed that his business in cotton, cotton seed, and cotton ginning, should, in order to perpetuate his name, be carried on by Chunilal so long as it could be carried on at a good profit, but should it appear that the trade would suffer so as to destroy his reputation, Chunilal should stop it. The testator then gave his widow Fulkor a life interest in all his property, with a prohibition against alienation, with remainder as to his property, which might remain over after her death to his grandsons.3. At the time of his dea...
Tag this Judgment!Shivlal Jethabhai Vs. Bhikha Ramjan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.843
1. We answer the question referred in the affirmative. Sections 12 and 13 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act show that it was the intention of the legislature to open up all transactions between the parties having a bearing upon the claim out of which the suit arises from the very commencement. This is one of the means adopted by the legislature to carry out the intention expressed in the preamble of relieving the agricultural classes from indebtedness. We understand this to mean indebtedness existing at the date of the passing of the Act as well as future indebtedness.2. The point referred to us has never, so far as we have been able to ascertain, been raised during the last thirty years which have elapsed since the passing of the Act, and we know of no case which has been decided which is based upon any other reading of the Act than that indicated above.3. We are indebted to the pleaders who have argued the case as amici curiae with much keenness and have given great assistanc...
Tag this Judgment!Dayaldas Laldas Vs. Savitribai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR386
Chandavarkar, J.1. The facts, material for the purposes of the question of Hindu law argued before us, are shortly these.2. One Varubai died possessed of property and left her surviving a son by name Dinkar, and three daughters. The property in dispute formed the anvadheya stridhan of Varubai, she having received it in gift from her father after her marriage.3. The daughters of Varubai, who are respondents before us, were plaintiffs in the suit, which has led to this second appeal. They claimed the property as sole heirs of their mother. The appellant before us asserted his right to it under a title derived at a Court sale from Varubai's son Dinkar. His case was that Dinkar was the sole heir of Varubai.4. Both the Courts below have awarded the respondents' claim, holding that they were the heirs of Varubai.5. The question argued before us is, whether the son and the daughters of Varubai take the property as joint heirs of their deceased mother, or whether the daughters alone take it as...
Tag this Judgment!Laduram Manormal Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.835
1. The complainant, who is the Sanitary Insp ector of the Municipality of Igatpuri, charged the accused with an offence under Section 155 of the Bombay District Municipal Act III of 1901, on the ground that the accused had disobeyed a notice from the Municipality inasmuch as he did not remove a cess-pool and took no notice of the Municipality's requirements.2. Section 155, under which the charge is brought, provides that--'Whoever disobeys or fails to comply with any lawful direction given by any written notice issued by a Municipality under any power conferred by Chapter IX shall be punished in the manner provided by the section.'3. We have, therefore, to ascertain whether the accused has disobeyed or failed to comply with any lawful direction given by written notice. It is alleged that he has failed to comply with a written notice given under Section 107(2) of the Act which provides that the Municipality may by written notice demolish any cess-pool. It is alleged that the accused has...
Tag this Judgment!Jethabhai Kevalbhai Vs. Chhotalal Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR1
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The material facts of this case are as follows:--Gordhan Ambaidas died in June 1896 leaving him surviving his wife Fulkor, his daughter Rukhmini, her husband Chunilal and two grandsons, children of Chunilal.2. By his will, dated the 27th of May 1896, he appointed Chunilal and Fulkor his executor and executrix and after charging his estate with the maintenance of his widow, daughter and grandsons and providing for the performance of certain funeral ceremonies, directed that his business in cotton, cotton seed and cotton ginning should, in order to perpetuate his name, be carried on by Chunilal so long as it could be carried on at a good profit but should it appear that the trade would surfer so as to destroy his reputation Chunilal should stop it. The testator then gave his widow Fulkor a life interest in all his property with a prohibition against alienation with remainder as to his property which might remain over after her death to his grandsons.3. At the tim...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ganesh Balvant Modak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR21
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an application by Ganesh Balvant Modak for revision of the conviction recorded against and sentence passed upon him by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay under Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has held that the petitioner has been guilty of the offence of attempting to excite feelings of disaffection towards the Government established by law in British India by the sale of copies of a periodical called the Swaraj containing an article headed ' The (sic)Etiology of the Bomb in Bengal,' which is seditious within the meaning of the section above mentioned.2. This finding of the Magistrate has been assailed before us on two grounds : first, that there has been no publication by the petitioner of the periodical in question, containing the article charged as seditious; and, secondly, that the article itself is not seditious within the meaning of Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code.3. It is to be remarked at the outset that bo...
Tag this Judgment!Gangabai Vs. Basvant Ballappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR143
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The contest in this appeal is between the representatives of a mortgagee and the heir of a mortgagor.2. The mortgage in question was of certain Deshgat vatan property effected in the year 1850 between the holder of the vatan, who was the father of the defendants, and the person under whom the plaintiffs claim. The property mortgaged is described usamchi khasgat deshgati paiki jamin (land out of our private deshgat or property attached to our hereditary office). The mortgage being ostensibly of land attached to an hereditary office was under the rule enunciated in Kalu Narayan Kulkarni v. Hanmappa bin Bhimappa ILR (1879) 5 Bom. 435, approved of by the Privy Council in Padapa v. Swamirao ILR (1900) 24 Bom. 556, in its inception void against the heir of the mortgagor by reason of the provisions of Regulation XVI of 1827.3. It is contended, however, on behalf of the mortgagee's representatives that by reason of a certain settlement effected between Government and t...
Tag this Judgment!Parami Ramayya Vs. Mahadevi Shankarappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR196
Chandavarkar, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant to recover arrears of maintenance from the respondents. Both the Courts below have found that the appellant's husband Ramayya died in February 1890, devising all his property by a will to the respondents. The will contains a provision that the respondents should maintain the appellant in case she lived with them, but that, if owing to disagreement she lived apart, they should give her Rs. 24 a year for her maintenance.2. It is also found by the lower Courts that after the husband's death the appellant led for some time an unchaste life and gave birth to a child but that since then she has been chaste.3. Upon these facts the respondents contended in the Court of first instance that, on account of the unchaste life which the appellant had led for some time after her husband's death, she had forfeited her right even to bare or starving maintenance. In support of that contention they relied on two decisions...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Balvant Modak Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1909
Reported in: 5Ind.Cas.612
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an application by Ganesh Balvant Modak for revision of the. conviction recorded against, and sentence passed upon him by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate has held that the petitioner has been guilty of the offence of attempting to excite feelings of disaffection towards the Government established by law in British India by the sale of copies of a periodical called the Swaraj containing an article headed. 'The Etiology of the Bomb in Bengal,' which is seditious within the meaning of the section above mentioned.2. This finding of the Magistrate has been assailed before us on two grounds: first, that there has been no publication by the petitioner of the periodical in question, containing the article charged as seditious; and, secondly, that the article itself is not seditious within the meaning of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code.3. It is to be remarked at the outset that both the...
Tag this Judgment!Maharana Shri Davlat Singhji Vs. Khachar Hamir Mon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.830
1. The plaintiff in this case sued the defendants for Rs. 12-11-6 representing his share in the produce of certain immovable property of the value of Rs. 45-0-9 which was collected and lawfully received by the defendant No. 1 in the Samvat year 1957 but which in accordance with the practice of previous years it was his duty to distribute partly to the plaintiff.2. The case is in all respects similar to that of Damodar Gopal Dikshit v. Chintaman Balkrishna Karve 17 B. 42.3. It is a suit for money had and received to the plaintiff's use. It does not fall under Clause (4), Schedule II of Act IX of 1837, in that it is not a suit for possession of immovable property or for recovery of an interest in such property, nor does it fall within Clause (31) because it is not alleged that the produce was unlawfully received by the defendant. That being so the suit was cognizable by the Court of Small Causes.4. Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act provides that 'save as expressly provi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »