Mumbai Court July 1909 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Krishna Tanhaji Vs. Aba Shetti Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.833
1. The document (Ex. 29) which embodies the terras of a compromise between the parties has been apparently treated by the learned District Judge as a sale, which under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act requires a delivery of possession in order to validate it. But the terms of the deed do not bring the transaction within the category of a sale, as, defined in that Act. The document in question merely embodied a compromise between the parties and as held by the Privy Council in Rani Mewa Kuwar v. Rani Hulus Kuwar II.A. 157 at p. 166; 13 B.L.R. 312 the nature of a compromise is that it is an acknowledgment of the existing rights of the parties. No delivery of possession was necessary in this case in order to give effect to the compromise. That being the only point argued here we reverse the District Judge's decree and restore that of the Subordinate Judge with costs both of the second appeal and the appeal in the lower Court on the respondent....
Narayan Raoji Ranade Vs. Gangaram Ratanchand Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.816
1. It is admitted, and indeed the record shows, that the suit was. instituted in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge and that at the time of institution the Subordinate Judge had conferred on him the powers of a Small Cause Judge. The present suit was of the nature of a small cause and fell within that jurisdiction. But it is argued that the suit is not a small cause because it was not tried as such. It is true it was tried by the Subordinate Judge, First Class, not under his small cause but under his ordinary jurisdiction. The reason is that at the time of its institution, the Subordinate Judge, First Class having gone on privilege leave for twenty-one days, the Joint Subordinate Judge, Second Class, who was in charge of the Court, had the suit registered in the file of regular suits and not in the file of small causes. But, on that account, the Subordinate Judge, First Class, had not ceased to be a judge of the Court with small cause powers; his absence was merely temporar...
Vaman Sakharam Khare Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1909
Reported in: IIIInd.Cas.776
1. This is an application by Vaman Sakharam Khare, a pleader of the District Court at Nasik, to set aside the order of the District Magistrate of Nasik, made under Section 118 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, directing the petitioner to execute a personal recognizance in Rs. 2,000 to be of good behaviour for one year with two substantial and respectable sureties for Rs. 1,000 each. The order has been made as a result of proceedings taken against the petitioner under Chapter VIII of the Code on information that he had been disseminating seditious matter by means of speeches. The speeches charged against the petitioner as seditious are six in number and are found by the District Magistrate to have been delivered on different occasions between the 5th of February 1907 and the 5th of September 1908. The last speech was delivered on the latter date. The information was filed before the District Magistrate by the Police under Section 108 of the Code on the 10th of December 1908. Having reg...
Pranjivandas Lakhmidas Vs. Bhavanishankar Ramshankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.780
ORDERChandavarkar, J.1. I think in this case a rule must issue. The Subordinate Judge has gone beyond the condition prescribed in Sections 278 and 280 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is found that the possession is with the claimant, and the judgment-debtor is not in possession, physical or constructive. But the Subordinate Judge has decided against the claimant upon the ground that the sale-deed on which he relies is invalid. I will not, however, pursue this matter further, because I understand my learned colleague to agree with me so far. But he thinks that under the extraordinary jurisdiction we are not bound to interfere even where there is an error as to jurisdiction, as the defeated party has a remedy by suit.2. It is true that our power under the extraordinary jurisdiction is discretionary. But it is a well-known rule of law that all judicial discretion must be exercised not arbitrarily but according to sound judicial principle. The decision in Dayaram Jagjivan v. Govardhandas D...
Suleman Adam Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1909
Reported in: IIIInd.Cas.774
Chandavarkar, A.C.J.1. The first ground urged in this application is that the Magistrate who has bound the petitioners over to keep the peace has omitted to comply with the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That section requires that the summons issued under Section 114 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under Section 112.2. It is admitted by the Magistrate in the present case that that was not done. In other words, the summons was not accompanied by a copy of the order and the reason given by the Magistrate is that the Form, Cr. P. C, No. 56 G. in itself contains the substance of the order made under Section 112 and that it is, therefore, the practice of his Court to consider this form of summons to be sufficient notice to the accused of the matter with which he is charged and, therefore, to be complied with under the provisions of Section 115. Then the Magistrate goes on to say: 'The order is made in English and copy of this accompanies the su...
Bichubha Mansangji Vs. Vela Dhanji Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1909
Reported in: IIIInd.Cas.773
Chandavarkar, A.C.J.1. The question of law in this case is whether the expressions ' talukdar's estate' and 'talukdari estate' occurring in Section 31 of the Talukdars (Gujrat) Act VI of 1888' include the estate held by a taluhdar on any other tenure than talukdari.2. The question is really beset with difficulties of construction because the language of the section itself and in fact of the Act are rather obscure upon the point. Very careful arguments have been addressed to us on either side; and if the question were res Integra, I should have taken time to consider it more carefully. But I think that in principle the point arising in the present case is the same as that decided in Khodabhai Sartansing v. Chaganlal Kishordas 9 Bom. L.R. 1122. There it was held that the expression talukdar's estate' meant only the estate held by a talukdar on talukdari tenure and not property held on any ordinary tenure which was distinguishable from the former.3. That is a decision of a Division Bench ...
Dagdu Sakharam Vs. Totaram Narayan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.243
Batchelor, J.1. We are obliged to Mr. A.G. Desai for his assistance in this appeal. It arises out of a suit which is described by the learned Subordinate Judge as a suit for the partition and separate possession of joint family property, consisting of lands, houses and movables.2. The question before us is as to the Court which is properly vested with jurisdiction to try this suit. That depends upon the value of the subject-matter of the suit. The market-value of the share claimed by the plaintiff has been ascertained to be Rs. 5,600 and that sum is not now objected to on behalf of the defendants.3. The First Class Subordinate Judge has returned the plaint for presentation to the 2nd Class Subordinate Judge, being of opinion that the suit falls within the jurisdiction of this latter official. Mr. Dandekar on behalf of the appellant urges that that is wrong, and that the suit properly belongs to the jurisdiction of the 1st Class Subordinate Judge himself.4. The question really turns upo...
Krishnaji Narayan Hardikar Vs. Balkrishna Venkatesh Phadke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1909
Reported in: IIIInd.Cas.772
ORDER1. The Court agrees with the Commissioner and holds that the relinquishment of his claim by the reversioner is a release and must be stamped accordingly....
Kisandas Rupchand and ors. Vs. Rachappa Vithoba Shilvant and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.726
Batchelor, J.1. On 20th March 1905 the suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted, the plaintiffs claiming an order for the dissolution of an alleged partnership and accounts. It was stated in the plaint that, in pursuance of the partnership agreement, the plaintiffs had brought in Rs. 4,001 as capital which was repayable, as to Rs. 3,001, on 1st November 1902, and, as to the remaining Rs. 1,000, on 8th November 1904. 2. The substantial defences were that the alleged partnership was never agreed to or undertaken, and that the plaintiffs never contributed Rs. 4,001 or any other sum as capital. 3. The Court of first instance raised several issues, and dismissed the suit on the grounds that no partnership was created and that the suit as framed would not lie. The learned Subordinate Judge found as a fact that the plaintiffs did deliver to the defendants Rs. 4,001 worth of cloth; 'but' he says, 'that is no reason why plaintiff should get relief in this suit. He made an experiment ...
Baldev Tribhuvandas Gujauati Vs. Baldevdas Dwarkadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1909
Reported in: 3Ind.Cas.45
Chandavarkar, A.C.J.1. The learned Judge of the Small Causes Court heard. this suit as ex parte, because the defendant did not appear on the 15th December 1908. It is true that the defendant had been ordered on the 24th of November 1908 to appear on the 9th of December 1908. On that date, however, his pleader represented to the Court that he was ill and so the case was adjourned for the defendant's appearance to the 15th of December 1908. On that date again the defendant failed to appear on the ground of illness, and the Court declined to grant any further adjournment, holding that as he had failed to attend or to satisfy the Court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from attending, the suit should be heard ex parte. But there is no law which warranted this Order merely on the ground of failure of the defendant to appear under the circumstances above-mentioned. Prom the beginning the defendant had appeared by his pleader on all the days on which the case had been taken up. The su...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »