Mumbai Court August 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.
Sangira Malappa Vs. Ramappa Sangappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.257
Chandavarkar, J.1. The learned District Judge has found upon the evidence that there was between the plaintiff and the first defendant an oral agreement, at the time the formal sale transaction was arranged, to reconvey the property on payment by the latter of Rs. 200; and he has held that the said agreement is a fact which, under the proviso to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, entitles the plaintiff to have the sale-deed executed by him in favour of the first defendant set aside and to recover the property on payment of Rs. 200. In support of this view the learned District Judge has relied on two decisions of this Court; Keshavrao Bhagwant v. Rai Pandu 8 Bom. L.R. 287 and Abaji Annagi v. Luxman Tukaram 8 Bom. L.R. 553; 30 B. 426. These decisions followed Pertap Chander Ghose v. Mohendra Purkait 16 I.A. 233; 17 C. 291. In this last case the facts were that the plaintiff therein had induced his tenants to sign certain kabuliyats by representing that certain stipulations therein, t...
Jethabhai Nursey Vs. Chapsey Cooverji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.108
1. This rather heavy litigation was the unfortunate result of a division or faction in the Cutchi Dassa Oswal caste, to which both the parties belong. At the time of the suit the defendant was President and the plaintiff was a member of the Managing Committee of the caste while both the plaintiff and defendant were trustees of two trust funds established by the caste, under separate trust deeds, called the Derasar and Sadharan funds.2. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was entitled to inspect and take copies of all the books and documents of the Mahajan, the Managing Committee, the Sub-Committee and the Trustees; and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's exercise of his rights in this regard. The defendant's main answers to the suit were that the question in dispute was a purely caste question outside the jurisdiction of the Court; that the plaintiff was not entitled to inspect the minute books of the Sub-Committee or the correspon...
Bhimappa Tamappa and ors. Vs. Khanappa Venkappa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.594
1. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure asking for our interference on the ground that the District. Judge of Bijapur has acted without jurisdiction in making order in a summary suit under Section 4 of the Curator's Act XIX of 1841.2. The occasion for the application which was made to the District Judge and upon which the order complained of was passed, was the death in 1907 of Basawa the widow of one Kotrappa who died in 1892. Kotrappa was the representative Vatandar of a Deshgat Vatan in Bijapur territory, and on his death his widow Basawa was entered on the Register as representative Vatandar and she held the Vatan property until her death. On her death an application was made by one Khanappa, who claimed to be the nearest heir of Kotrappa, for possession of the property under the Curator's Act, and that application was granted, It is the order on that application which is now the subject of this proceeding.3. Two points have been raised by the app...
Mardansaheb Gansusaheb and ors. Vs. Rajaksaheb Kashimsaheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.254
1. It is found by the lower appellate Court that the second respondent, Miya Saheb valad Maula Saheb, who was defendant No. 4 in the suit which has led to this second appeal, was acknowledged by Maula Saheb as his son, and that the acknowledgment fulfills all the requirements of and is, therefore, valid according to Muhammadan law. This latter finding as to the legal validity of the acknowledgment is impugned before us upon the ground that, on the facts found the second respondent must be held to have been born of what in Muhammadan law is called zina, fornication or adultery and that such a boy cannot, according to that law, be acknowledged as son.2. The findings of the learned District Judge in appeal are not sufficiently clear. He holds upon the evidence that even if Jainabi's husband was still living when the child was born, he had divorced his wife before that birth.' But that leaves the question still open whether at the time of conception Jainabi had been divorced. On that point...
Bhaichand Gulabchand and ors. Vs. Bala Khandu Teli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.834
Basil Scott, C.J.1. There is no question in this case but that the plaintiffs' suit is barred unless they obtained possession in execution of a decree, by which the defendant was bound, in January 1902. 2. It has been held by the lower Court that the defendant was by reason of his conduct after notice for execution, notwithstanding the informality with regard to service of the summons in the suit, bound by the execution proceedings. That being so, possession under the decree could be obtained in execution as against him by the procedure laid down in Section 263 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, namely by his removal from the property in favour of the decree-holder. This procedure, however, was not followed.3. The facts proved are stated with clearness by the Subordinate Judge Mr. Dixit and upon that statement it is manifest that his conclusion that actual possession was not given and that the defendant remained in possession as before is correct.4. It has, however, been argued by Mr...
Bajaba Bajirao Vs. Trimbak Vishvanath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.255
1. The question is whether certain land forms part of the joint family property of all the members of the Oke family who are the parties to the suit, or whether it is the separate property of the defendants.2. According to the findings of the lower appellate Court the land was originally ancestral and was the subject of a suit brought on behalf of one Hari Krishna Oke against the branch of the Oke family to which the parties to this suit belong. The litigation ended in a compromise in 1867 whereby the father of the parties to the suit was to remain in possession of land claimed for seven years, and then to convey it to the other branch. The representative of the other branch on the 24th of September 1873 sold his interest which was to come into his possession under the terms of the compromise in the following year to the defendant No. 1 by a sale-deed for the sum of Its. 500. It is found as a fact that Rs. 500 was not part of the joint family money but was provided by the defendant No....
Mahipat Shamla Vs. Nathu Vithoba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.252
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit for redemption alleging that the document which had been passed by them in favour of the, defendant in the form of a sale-deed was really a mortgage.2. The defendant disputed this allegation and contended that evidence was not admissible for the purpose of proving that the sale-deed was really a mortgage.3. Issues were raised and the further hearing was fixed for a certain date. After the raising of the issues bat before the hearing, the plaintiff put in the following application: 'This is a suit for redemption: plaintiff and defendant had entered into a mortgage transaction and the defendant has taken from the plaintiff a mortgage in the form of a sale-deed. We have got evidence to show that the sale-deed is really a mortgage. The defendant has now given a petition contending that oral evidence is inadmissible though he did not say so in the written-statement. The different High Courts have taken different views as to whether oral evi...
Municipal Commissioner of Bombay Vs. G.i.P. Railway Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.281
1. The Agent of the G.I.P. Railway Co. was charged in the Presidency Magistrate's Court under Section 394(i)(d), of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, with, having used certain premises for the purpose of storing timber without a license granted by, the Municipal Commissioner.2. The Chief Presidency Magistrate haying taken evidence has referred for the opinion of this Court certain questions specified at the end of the case slated by him.3. The first question is, in our opinion, One of fact and not of law, and, therefore, cannot be stated under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, under which this reference is made.4. As regards the other questions, if the second question is answered in the affirmative no answer need be given to the remaining questions, for the case will in that event have to be decided in favour of the respondent. The second question is in these terms:Do the statutory powers given to the Railway Company (section 7 of the Indian Railways Act IX of 1890) preclude ...
Rahimkhan Hyderkhan Vs. Dadamiya Hyderkhan and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.833a
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was the eldest son of a deceased Vatandar Police Patil who died two years and a half previously, stating that the cause of the suit was that in a dispute between him and the defendant the Collector had ruled that the defendant was the eldest son and that the plaintiff's name could not be entered as Vatandar Patil unless he established his right as eldest son by a decree of the Court.2. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that this suit is not maintainable by reason of the provisions of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act (Bombay Act III of 1874).3. The defendant's contention commended itself to the learned District Judge because he considered himself bound by a decision of this Court in Raoji v. Genu 22 B. 344 to decide that he had no jurisdiction. A reference to that decision will show that the ratio decidendi was that the case fell under Section 25 of the Hereditary Offices Act under which the duty is imposed upon ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›