Mumbai Court February 1910 Judgments
Lingappa Ningappa Shiwalli Vs. Sangawa Gandapagowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR370
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The learned District Judge has found upon the evidence that the compromise, Exhibit 31, was entered into by the appellant's natural father for the appellant's benefit when he was a minor. It is urged before us in support of this second appeal that after the appellant had been adopted, the natural father ceased to be his guardian and could not, therefore, legally represent him in the matter of the compromise. That, however, is not the law. Where a dispute arises as to the factum or validity of the adoption of a minor, the minor's natural father, or in his absence, those who would, according to Hindu law, be the minor's natural guardians, are entitled to protect his interests against rival claimants, and to enter into a compromise provided that be for the minor's benefit: Nirvanaya v. Nirvanaya ILR (1885) 9 Bom. 365.2. Whether such a compromise is in any particular case beneficial to the minor or not is, generally speaking, a question of fact; but that question mu...
Tag this Judgment!Gokulsing Bhikaram Pardeshi Vs. Kisansing Guru Laxmangir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR539
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The facts found by the lower appellate Court, on which the question of law arising upon this second appeal turns, are shortly these.2. Chimnaji wallad Ramji brought a suit on a bond against Mahadevgir Guru. The latter having died during the pendency of the suit, his widow Rahul and his brother Narayangir were brought by Chimnaji on the record as the deceased's legal representatives. The suit ended in a decree, awarding the claim out of the property of the deceased. Before execution, both Rahul and Narayangir died. The decree-holder (Chimnaji) then brought on the record the present respondents as legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor, Mahadevgir, and applied for execution of the decree by attachment and sale of the property now in dispute. The respondents denied that they were the legal representatives of the deceased, and that they had any property of his which could be liable for the decree. All these objections were, however, negatived by ...
Tag this Judgment!Bapuji Sorabji Framji Vs. the Clan Line Steamers Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR553
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The first question which has been argued in this case is whether at the time when Lloyd and Co. gave a notice to the ' Clan Macleod' at Liverpool on the 9th of April 1907, to stop the goods which they had despatched under a contract of sale to Millerson & Co. the goods were in transit or had reached the possession of Millerson & Co. or any person on their behalf.2. The contract for the sale of the 250 cases supplied by Lloyd & Co. was made in England and the obligations incidental to that contract must be decided according to the law of England.3. Section 45 (1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1893, is as follows :-Goods are deemed to be in course of transit from the time when they are delivered to a carrier by land or water or other bailee or custodian for the purposes of transmission to the buyer until the buyer or his agent in that behalf takes delivery of them from such carrier or other bailee or custodian.4. This appears to be a codification of the case law of E...
Tag this Judgment!Sitabai Vs. Ramchandrarao V. Bhonsle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR373
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The appellant is the wife of the respondent, who is Jahagirdar of the village of Here. She sued him in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Belgaura for separate maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 a month on the ground of desertion and legal cruelty. The respondent denied the charge and alleged that the appellant had left him at the instigation of her brother.2. The Subordinate Judge has held the charge of desertion and legal cruelty not proved and accordingly dismissed the claim. The evidence on that question is both oral and documentary, and has, in our opinion, not been rightly appreciated by the Subordinate Judge. The testimony of the witnesses, who depose to having witnessed acts of ill-treatment of the appellant by the respondent, has been disbelieved by the Subordinate Judge upon the ground that they are almost all related to the appellant, But that by itself is very slender ground for disbelieving the sworn testimony of men, some at all even...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam HusseIn Tyaballi Vs. Mahamadally Ibrahimji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR531
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff originally sued on the 18th of April 1899 to recover Rs. 1999 due under a mortgage-deed dated the 18th of April 1877. He claimed to recover the amount in question by sale of the mortgaged property and any balance from the remaining non-hypothicated property of the first defendant and of the deceased mortgagor.2. A decree was passed in his favour against the mortgaged property alone. The amount realised by the sale of the mortgaged property was insufficient to satisfy the decree by Rs. 837, and the plaintiff applied under Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act for a further decree against the other property of the mortgagor.3. The Subordinate Judge found that the claim was time-barred.4. An appeal was then preferred to the District Court on the ground that a sum of Rs. 200 was paid by the mortgagors on account of interest on the mortgage-debt, and that therefore the plaintiff's present claim was not barred by limitation, and that the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!Pirojshah Bhikaji Vs. Pestonji Merwanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR366
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. We think the case falls within the principle of Abhiram Dass v. Gopal Dass ILR (1889) Cal. 48. The provisions of Section 250 of the Indian Succession Act X of 1865, and Section 81 of the Probate and Administration Act V of 1881, are that the interest which entitles a person to put in a caveat must be an interest in the estate of the deceased person, that is, there should be no dispute whatever as to the title of the deceased to the estate, but that the person who wishes to come in as caveat-or must show some interest in that estate derived from the deceased by inheritance or otherwise. That is the construction which the Calcutta High Court has put upon the section in the case above referred to, and that seems to be in accordance with the language of the section itself. In the present case caveator No. 1 claims adversely to the alleged testator. According to the latter the caveator has no interest whatever in the property. But according to caveator No. 1, he and ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chanda Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR425
Arthur Wilson, J.1. Their lordships have already intimated that they would humbly advise. His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. It remains now to state the reasons which have led their lordships to tender that advice.2. The appeal is against two orders of the Chief Court of the Punjab dated 16th March, 1908, and 5th February, 1909. By the first of these orders, the Chief Court removed the present appellant permanently from the list of pleaders entitled to practise, on the ground of professional misconduct. By the second order, the Court reviewed its former decision, and reduced the penalty imposed upon the appellant to suspension from practice for a period of three years.3. The material facts are not in doubt, in their lordships' opinion. The appellant acted as pleader in a preemption suit, first for one Partab Singh, and after the death of the latter for his minor son, Harbans Singh, who was under the guardianship of his mother, Ishar Kaur. He was said to have taken advant...
Tag this Judgment!Treacher and Co. Ltd. Vs. Mahomedali Adamji Peerbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR597
Davar, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are a limited liability Company which was incorporated in the early sixties. They acquired the business and the properties of certain individuals, who were previous to the formation of this Company, carrying on business in Bombay in the name of Treacher & Co. The plaintiffs since their incorporation have continued to carry on their business in Bombay in the name of Treacher & Co. Ltd. Amongst the properties acquired by the Company, were certain lands and buildings thereon situated at Byculla at the corner of Duncan and Bellasis Junction roads. The property was conveyed to the plaintiff Company soon after its formation and the Company has been in occupation and possession of the lands and building thereon ever since. It appears that the Company were desirous of selling their Byculla property and they attempted to sell the same by public auction on the 18th of November 1907. As however there was no attendance of bidders, the property was not put up...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Mulji Vs. Bhogilal Naranji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR365
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The decision' of the Subordinate Judge having been under Section 295 of the old Civil Procedure Code, no appeal lay. see Kashiratn v. Mani Ram ILR(1892) All, 120, Jagadish Chandra Shah v. Kripa Nath Shah ILR (1889) Cal. 48. Therefore the lower appellate Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal. But it appears that the question of jurisdiction was not raised before it. Therefore we make the rule absolute with costs of this application, but not with the costs of the appeal in the lower appellate Court....
Tag this Judgment!Udai Raj Singh Vs. Raja Bhagwan Bakhsh Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR409
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow,2. The matter in controversy is the right of succession to the Amethere Taluqa in the Sultanpur District of the Province of Oudh, formerly the property of Raja Madho Singh deceased whose name appears in Lists I and II mentioned in section 8 of the Oudh Estates Act (Act I of 1869).3. Madho Singh died on the 24th of August 1891. Under his will dated the is not of May, 1891, the respondent Bhagwan Bakhsh Singh has been in possession ever since Madho Singh's death.4. The respondents' title is challenged by the first appellant Babu Uday Raj Singh, representing the late plaintiff Guru Bakhsh Singh.5. The claimant Guru Baksh Singh deduced his title from one Lal Lachhman Singh who was adopted by Madho Singh but died on the 12th of April, 1891, in the lifetime of his adoptive father. His case was that Madho Singh in his lifetime made over the estate to La...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »