Mumbai Court April 1909 Judgments
Bhimacharya Venkatacharya Vs. Ramacharya Bhimacharya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.750
1. The question of Hindu law in this Second Appeal is, when a married Hindu woman dies, leaving no issue, and the competition for heirship to her stridhan is between her husband and a son by another wife of the latter, who is entitled to the property-the husband or the step-son of the woman?2. The case is governed by the Mitakshara law.3. Both the Courts below have decided the question in favour of the husband; and the step-son of the deceased woman has preferred this Second Appeal.4. Yajnyavalkya's text regarding succession to the property of a woman, who dies leaving no issue, says: 'Her kinsmen take it, if she die without issue'. [The Mit., Chap. II Section XI, pl. 8, page 460, Stokes's Hiudu Law. Books].5. Vijnaneshwara's gloss on the text is, as follows:If a woman die 'without issue' that is, leading no progeny; in other words, having no daughter, nor daughter's daughter, nor daughter's son, nor son, nor son's son : the woman's property as above described, shall be taken by her ki...
Tag this Judgment!Parshottam Hargovan Parekh Vs. Harbhamji Amarsangji Thakor and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.753
Chandavarkar, J.1. The appellant, having obtained a money decree against a taluhdar, who is now deceased and is represented by the respondents, presented a darkhast for its execution. Several villages, belonging to the taluhdar, were attached and the Court sent the darkhast to the Collector to be dealt with under Sections 320 to 325 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882, then in force. The Collector in his turn transferred the darkhast to the Talukdari Settlement Officer,, the reason for that being that the latter combined in himself, according to a rule having the force of law, the functions of Collector and Talukdari Settlement Officer for the purpose of execution of decrees against or in respect of talukdari lands. That Officer, acting under the sections in question, framed a scheme, whereby it was arranged that the appellant should be put in possession of one of the attached villages and allowed to enjoy the income of that village for seven years in satisfaction of the decree and ...
Tag this Judgment!The Trustees for the Improvement of the City of Bombay Vs. Jalbhoy Ard ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.757
Betchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal of Appeal appointed under Section 48 of the City of Bombay Improvement Act, 1898, and has reference to the amount of compensation to be awarded to the claimant, Jalbhai Ar-desir Sett, in respect of nine parcels of land which have been acquired by Government for the Improvement Trustees under the Improvement Act, 1898. The compensation awarded by the Special Collector was Rs. 11,803 and on appeal to the Tribunal this sum was increased to Rs. 42,364 with interest at six percent, on Rs. 30,560. Against this award the Improvement Trustees bring the present appeal, contending that the Tribunal has applied wrong principles in assessing the compensation and that an excessive sum has consequently been allowed.2. The facts are not in dispute, and for present purposes may be shortly stated as follows: In December 1898 the nine parcels were notified in connection with a scheme under Section 27 of the Improvement Act, and at that ti...
Tag this Judgment!Santa Bandu Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.742
Chandavarkar, J.1. In this case the prisoner, Santya walad Bandu, a Mahar Christian, has been convicted of the offence of murder and sentenced to death by the Sessions Judge of Ahmednagar. The case has come up to this Court for confirmation of the sentence of death and the prisoner has appealed against both the conviction and sentence.2. The evidence against the prisoner, may be shortly summarised. He was jointly tried with another prisoner, Yeshwada horn, Babul, wife of the deceased Babul, whom the appellant has been found by the Sessions Judge to have murdered. Yeshwada had made a statement before Mr. Mirikar, Special Magistrate, First Class, a few days after her arrest (See Ext. 31). In that statement she implicated the present appellant in the murder of her husband in her presence and she further averred that a few days before the murder the appellant had informed her of his intention to kill her husband. So far as her own part in the murder goes, she made no confession of her own ...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar Natha Vs. Valabhdas Murlidhar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.172
1. The lower Courts have rightly, in our opinion, held that the first respondent is not answerable to the claim of the appellant.2. The question is as to the liability of the second and the third respondents. Their father had been a guardian appointed by the Court and, when the minor died, the Court made a declaration discharging him so far as his liabilities under the Guardians and Wards Act were concerned. Under Section 41, Clause (4), of the Guardians and Wards Act, when a guardian has delivered any property in his possession: or control belonging to the ward or accounts as required by the Court, the Court may declare him to be discharged from his liabilities, save as regards any fraud which may subsequently be. discovered.' Such a declaration has the effect of protecting the guardian from all suits in connection with the management of the minor's property except in the case of fraud discovered after the declaration. No such fraud is found proved in. the present case; but it is cont...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Pranshankar and Bhogilal Valabhram Vs. Surajram Haribhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.765
1. The facts, upon which the questions of law in the two second appeals turn, are shortly these:The property in dispute originally belonged to one Dowlatrai Becharlal. He made a will on the 9th of October 1889, and died ten days later, leaving him surviving two daughters, Ladkore and Mani. Mani being a minor, the District Court of Ahmedabad appointed her maternal grandmother Raliata and her maternal uncle Chunilal guardians of her person, and the Nazir of the Court guardian of her property, under the Guardians and Wards Act. By the order of appointment the guardians of the person of the minor were enjoined not to give the girl in marriage without the Court's permission. Subsequently Chunilal applied to the Court for. permission to brother the girl to one Harprasad. The permission was granted, but some disagreement having arisen between Chunilal and Harprasad's grandfather, the former applied to the Court for revocation of the order granting the permission. The Court declined to revoke ...
Tag this Judgment!Trimbak Madhav Tilak Vs. Narayan Hari Lele
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.164
1. The executor of one Vishnupant Tilak applied to the District Court of Poona for its opinion, under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act with regard to the administration of the trust property of the testator.2. Some of the parties interested as beneficiaries under the, will were present at the time of the application, and those parties appear to have agreed that the Court should, advise the executor under Section 34. of the Trusts Act. An opinion was, accordingly, expressed by the District Judge upon the points preferred for the Court's opinion by the executor, but one at least of the beneficiaries was absent and not consenting.3. One of the parties who had consented to this method of disposal of the question having found that the opinion of the Court was unfavourable to his interest preferred an appeal against the opinion, and, in the alternative, has asked this Court to entertain his objection as made under the revisional jurisdiction of the Court conferred upon it by Section 622 o...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsidas Lakshman Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.171
ORDER1. The Court agrees with the ruling' of the Punjab Chief Court in Sher Muhammad v. Emperor of India P.R. 25 of 1901 Cr. and holds that an appeal lies not to this Court but to the Sessions Court. The memo, must be returned for presentation to that Court....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›