Mumbai Court September 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.
Chhaganlal Bhagvandas and Vs. Pranjivan Shivlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.842
1. The first point argued in support of these appeals is that the order of the District Judge, directing the Collector to pay the amount mentioned in the darkhast in Court, is not sustainable, having regard to the Pensions Act and the rules framed under it. This argument rests upon a misapprehension of the nature of the liability of the Collector, which is in dispute, and of the payment into Court which he has been directed to make. It is admitted before us, and, indeed, the Court below has found upon unchallenged evidence, that the amount, which is claimed by the applicants in the present darkhast, had become payable to the deceased Bhagvandas during his life-time, because he had been recognized as holder of the haq by the Collector under the Pensions Act. The power of the Collector under the rules framed under the Act had been exhausted, and there was no discretion for that officer to exercise, either under the Act or the rules, so far as Bhagvandas's right to receive the allowance f...
Walbai Vs. Heerbai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.277
Macleod, J.1. One Ramji Govindji died in February 1908 leaving two widows Heerbai and Walbai, his step-mother Bhagbai, and her daughter Velbai him surviving. In March 1908 Walbai the junior widow, filed this suit for the administration of the estate of Ramji, making Heerbai and Bhagbai defendants. After the suit was filed, Heerbai purported to adopt one Jadhowji the son of Ramji's father's brother and mother's sister. Jadhowji and subsequently Walbai were added as party defendants to this suit.2. It remains for me to come to a finding on the 6th issue whether the adoption of the third defendant is invalid on the grounds that he is son of Ramji's mother's sister.3. It was held by the Privy Council in Bhagwan Singh v. Bhagwan Singh 21 A. 412: 26 I.A. 153 that the text of Sakala cited by the authors of the Dattaka Mimansa and Dattaka Chandrika on the question who can be adopted is authoritative in all parts of India, That text is as follows, according to the literal translation given to t...
Mugapa Chanbasappa Sawadatti Vs. Mahamadsaheb Imamsaheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1909
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR137
Chandavarkar, J.1. We must set aside the decree of the lower Court and allow the execution in this matter to proceed. The decree for rent, it is admitted, remains unexecuted. But what is relied upon for the respondent is that according to a subsequent decree for redemption, a contain amount over arid above that due to him as mortgagee was appropriated by the appellant, during the time that he was in possession of the property as mortgagee. That, amount is adjudged to have been so appropriated upon account taken under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. It is conceded that the Act did not apply at the time the decree for rent was obtained. That decree gave a right to the appellant to recover a certain amount from the respondent. The fact that in a subsequent decree passed under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, it was found upon taking accounts in the way directed by the Act that the appellant as mortgagee had overpaid himself from the rents and profits cannot affect the right...
In Re: Sukhanand Gurumukhrai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.278
Macleod, J.1. This is a reference by the Special Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act relating to a piece of land measuring 3,009 square yards with a bungalow erected thereon situated on the Matunga Road which runs between Matunga station on the G.I.P. Railway Company's line and Mahim station on the B.B. and C.I. Railway Company's line. The property was notified by Government for the purpose of being handed over to the G.I.P. Railway Company which required additional land for traffic sidings and waggon sheds. A considerable area of the surrounding land has already been the subject-matter of previous references before me. The claimant purchased the land in reference about 1901 at the rate of Rs. 2 per square yard, and after filling it in all over to the extent of about 2 feet built a substantial upper storied bungalow with out-houses. The whole was surrounded with a low wall surmounted by a wooden fence. The compound has been laid out as a garden. This neighb...
Mavsang Bhavan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-03-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.273
ORDER1. We think that for a satisfactory disposal of this case we should have before us a correct map of the village marking the scene of the offence, the houses and the roads and giving other relevant information to enable us to understand properly the evidence of the eye-witnesses to the crime. The map which was put in at the trial in the Sessions Court is not drawn to scale and appears to be defective and unintelligible in several particulars. The prosecution ought to get a correct map prepared by an expert.2. The Sessions Judge ought to have allowed the prayer of the pleader for the defence to cross-examine Chhagan, who had been examined for the prosecution before the Committing Magistrate but whom the Public Prosecutor declined to examine at the Sessions trial. It was, of course, open to the Public Prosecutor to do that but at the same time it was his duty, in the interests of justice, to tender the witness for cross-examination seeing that the latter had been examined for the Cro...
Purushottam Hargovandas Vs. Rajbai Rajaji Hiraji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.839
1. The appellant appealed to the First Class Subordinate Judge for the disposal of an application for execution of a decree obtained by him so long ago as the 26th of August 1895. The application for execution was made on the 25th of June 1896. The mode in which the assistance of the Court was sought was by sale of the right, title, and interest of the mortgagor in the mortgaged property which was the subject of the suit. On the 8th of July 1898 an order for sale having been passed the proceedings were transferred to the Collector for execution, under Section 320 of the Code, and by him to the Talukdari Settlement Officer upon whom the powers of the Collector under that section had been conferred. The judgment-debtor was a Talukdar having a small share in a Talukdari estate, and it was in order to have that share realised by sale that the application had been made for execution.2. In the month of September 1905, under the provisions of the Gujarat Talukdars Act (Bombay Act VI of 1888) ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›