Mumbai Court July 1909 Judgments
Shapurji Hormasji Harver Vs. Monosseh Jacob Monosseh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.107
1. This is an application on behalf of the guardian ad litem of the defendant in this suit who is an adjudged lunatic, for an order allowing him to have his costs of an appeal filed by him in the suit out of the estate of the lunatic.2. The suit was originally filed by the plaintiff against the defendant upon a mortgage and deed of further charge, and in consequence of the defendant's state of mind the present applicant was appointed his guardian ad litem. The principal defence raised in the suit was that the defendant on the dates of the execution of the documents sued on was of unsound mind and that, therefore, he was not liable for the amount advanced by the plaintiff on those occasions. The suit was heard before Mr. Justice Macleod at great length and that learned Judge delivered a very careful judgment. The suit was dismissed but the guardian ad litem was allowed his costs out of the estate. He was not satisfied, however, with the decision and filed an appeal against it. The appea...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gulam HooseIn Ratonsey Nanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.958
Batchelor, J.1. The appellants have been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate under Section 143 of the Indian Penal Code of being members of an unlawful assembly, and have been sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 201. On behalf of the appellants the appeal has been argued by Mr. Branson and Mr. Binning but as the Government, though served with notice, has not elected to appear, we are without the advantage of argument in support of the learned Magistrate's judgment.2. Regard being had to the defining Sections 141 and 142 of the Code, the question is whether the appellants are shown intentionally to have joined an assembly of five or more persons of whom the common object was by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person to enforce any right or supposed right.3. The scene of the alleged offence is a piece of vacant ground behind the Khoja Shia mosque in Samuel Street. The title to this piece of land is in dispute between the trustees of the mosque who claim to h...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Lallubhai Pranubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1909
Reported in: IIIInd.Cas.963
1. The petitioner, Lallii-bhai Pranubhai, was Chitnis in the office of the Collector of Panch Mahals. He has been convicted by Mr. Patwardhan, Magistrate, First Class, of that District, of the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, of receiving a bribe of Rs. 800 from two Borahs, Shaik Adam and Malvi, as a motive or reward for doing an official act, and has been sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 300, in default, to Suffer three months' rigorous imprisonment:, The conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge of Broach and Panch Mahals.2. The petitioner now applies to us to quash the conviction and sentence under our revisoinal jurisdiction upon the ground that these rest upon the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices, viz., the givers of the bribe. Both the Courts below have discussed the evidence at great length and have come to the conclusion that the case against the petitioner is proved by the accomplice te...
Tag this Judgment!Bala Kushaba Vs. Abai Amrita Vaghmode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.246
Basil Scott, C.J.1. For the purpose of this appeal the material facts as found in the lower appellate Court are as follows:2. Chandu and Amrita were brothers.3. In 1872 Chandu mortgaged inter alia the property in suit to Babaji Teli with possession.4. In 1885 Chandu's son Dhondi through his next friend and uncle Amrita brought Suit No. 69 of 1885 at Indapur for redemption of the mortgage.5. On the 6th March 1886 a decree was passed permitting redemption on payment of Rs. 240 within four years.6. On the 31st March 1890 Amrita tendered that amount in Court and applied for possession from Babaji but the tender was rejected as out of time and the equity of redemption was foreclosed. 7. At this time Amrita was tenant of the land in suit under a rent-note granted by Babaji.8. In 1892 Babaji brought a possessory suit for three acres of land forming a small portion of the Survey No. 27 which includes the land in suit but the suit was dismissed.9. On the 5th April 1897 the defendant passed to A...
Tag this Judgment!Narsinha Krishnaji and ors. Vs. Vaman Vankatesh Deshpande and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.249
1. The plaintiffs who are the sons of one Vankatrao sued the first three defendants for possession of certain vatan land which they alleged had been leased by, their father by a lease, dated 1872, which was operative only for the period of his life. The plaintiffs were, at the date of the suit, joint with their cousins the sons of Dashrath, Venkatrao's brother, who with Venkatrao had been a joint vatandar of the Deshpande vatan to which the property in suit was attached.2. The first three defendants contended that the lease of 1872 was merely a formal recognition of a perpetual tenancy which had been in existence prior to the date of the Vatan Regulation of 1827 and that, therefore, they were entitled to remain in possession as permanent tenants.3. This argument rested on an allegation of fact which was held by the lower appellate Court to be not proved. This is sufficient in Special Appeal to dispose of the argument.4. We will now discuss the points of law which have been urged. In th...
Tag this Judgment!Fatma Boo Vs. Ghisan Boo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.242
1. The question in this case is whether the Article 127 of the Limitation Act can apply to a suit by the daughter of a deceased Mahomedan to recover her share in his property. It was decided under the Act of 1877 by an Appellate Bench of this Court in 1885 Syed Gulam Hussein v. Bibi Anvarnisa P.J. (1885) p. 170 that it can so apply, and that decision, so far as we are aware, has been followed in Bombay for the last twenty-three years. It is a decision which, is binding upon us; and we, therefore, hold that the suit falls within Article 127. Upon this point, therefore, the judgment of the lower appellate Court is confirmed....
Tag this Judgment!W. and A. Graham and Co. Vs. Chunilal Harilal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.131
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants to recover damages suffered by them in consequence of the defendants not taking proper delivery of a cargo of coals as they were bound to do under a contract made between the plaintiffs and defendants on the 30th January 1908.2. The plaintiffs say that by that agreement defendants agreed to purchase from the plaintiffs 50,000 tons of coals, shipment January to May and August to December 1909, 5,000 tons monthly. I am told this agreement has been altered so as to extend the time to delivery of 25,000 tons in 1909 and 25,000 tons in 1910. But that is not material for the purpose of the summons.3. On the 16th January 1909, the plaintiffs gave notice to defendants that the s. s. Blake had arrived in harbour with a cargo of 5,080 tons of coal; and tendered a delivery order in pursuance of the above mentioned agreement.4. Delivery was taken of only 400 tons by the defendants or their assigns and the balance of the cargo...
Tag this Judgment!Ganapati Ambadas Vs. Raghunath Anant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.244
1. The main question in the appeal to the District Court was, as is stated by the District Judge, whether the defendant has been in possession, and, if so, how long, and whether adversely, of the land claimed by the plaintiff in this suit.2. The question whether possession is adverse or not is sometimes one of simple fact, but it may be a question of law or a mixed question: see Lachmeshwar Sing v. Manowar Hossein 19 C. 253; 19 I.A. 483. In deciding the question the District Judge appears to have based his conclusion upon two circumstances. First, he says that in 1880 there was a starting point of adverse possession, because the defendant's father pulled down the plaintiff's house and expelled him; and, secondly, he says, that at the time of his view of the site, towards the end of 1907, the land in dispute was enclosed so as to form part and parcel of the defendant's premises and is actually part of the plinth of his house.4. It does not appear to us that those two circumstances stand...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagvandas Dharamsi Vs. A. Besse Frenchman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.960
1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code for revision of a decree passed in appeal in a Civil case by the Resident of Aden.2. A suit was instituted by the applicant in the Court of the Assistant Resident and was decided against him by that Judge.3. An appeal was then preferred to the Resident with a statement of the appellant's case in which after setting forth his contentions with regard to a certain question regarding sugar which arose in the case, he said:If, however, after considering all the circumstances your Honour feels any reasonable doubt as to such a finding in my favour as regards the sugar item, I submit that your Honour will bo pleased under Section 8 of the Aden Act II of 1864 to draw up a statement of this part of my case and submit it with your Honour's opinion to the High Court at Bombay.4. The Resident having considered the arguments advanced affirmed 'the decision of the Assistant Resident and did not draw up statement of the case and ...
Tag this Judgment!Pundlik Udaji Jadhav Vs. S.M. Railway Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1909
Reported in: IIIInd.Cas.964
1. We are of opinion that the protection given by Section 75 of the Indian Railways Act IX of 1890 extends to the whole parcel in which silk goods such as are mentioned in Clause (0 of the 2nd Schedule are contained, whether the rest of the parcel is composed of articles mentioned in the 2nd Schedule or not.2. This appears from the words of the section which draw a distinction between the articles mentioned in the Schedule and the parcel or package in which they are contained, and provides that the Railway Administration shall not be responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the parcel or package.3. We, therefore, answer the points submitted for our decision in the affirmative....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »