Mumbai Court February 1910 Judgments
imdad Ahmad, Dwarka Prasad, Jagdat Ram Pathak and Rahmu Chaudhri Vs. R ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR419
Collins, J.1. The question on this appeal is whether the plaintiff, who is the Raja of Basti, is entitled to recover possession of a number of villages or parts of villages situate in the district of Basti. Seven connected suits brought by the same plaintiff were tried at the same time, and were all dismissed by the Judge of first instance. On appeal to the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces these decisions were in all cases but two reversed and judgment entered for the plaintiff. The defendants having obtained the necessary certificate now appeal to this Board in the six cases decided against them. At the trial before the District Judge the oral evidence seems to have been taken on commission, and consequently the Judge of first instance had no advantage over the High Court in hearing and seeing the witnesses, and this Board must deal with the appeal under like conditions.2. The case for the plaintiff was rested on two grounds first that the property in question ...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Annaji Bodhani Vs. Trimbak Govind Dhaneshwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR363
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the appellant for a declaration of his right to use the water of a well jointly with the respondent and for an injunction to restrain the latter from obstructing the appellant in the exercise of his right. The respondent in his written statement denied the appellant's claim and asserted his exclusive right to the well. The Subordinate Judge, who tried the cause, found upon the evidence that the well had at one time been attached to two houses owned by two brothers constituting a joint Hindu family and that they effected a partition of the houses: that, some time after ' that, one brother sold the house allotted to him at the partition to the appellant and the other sold his to the respondent. These facts are admitted by both parties before us and have also been found by the District Judge, from whose decree this second appeal is preferred. As the two brothers had only one well, that is, the one now in dispute, which they jointly used a...
Tag this Judgment!Dattambhat Rambhat Vs. Krishnabhat Govindbhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR491
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question in this case is whether the appellant has a right to an order for sale of the mortgaged property the subject of the mortgage deed of the 29th October 1893.2. The learned Judge of the lower Court has considered that there are two contrary decisions of this Court upon the point and that he was bound to follow the later ruling, and he has accordingly followed what he believed to be the effect of the judgment in Krishna v. Hari : (1908)10BOMLR615 , in preference to one in Mahadaji v. Joti ILR (1892) 17 Bom 425. In giving this preference to the judgment in Krishna v. Hari : (1908)10BOMLR615 , he has lost sight of the provisions of Section 3 of the Indian Law Reports Act XVIII of 1875.3. We think, however, that he has misread the judgment in Krishna v. Han : (1908)10BOMLR615 , which was shown by the judgment of the Court in Parashram v. Putlajirao (1909) 11 Bom L.R. 1315 : 34 Bom. 128, to fall within a different class of cases to that in Mahadaji v. Joti...
Tag this Judgment!Breul and Co. Vs. Haji Sidick Haji Ibrahim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR474
Davar, J.1. Almost all the material facts in this case are either admitted or undisputed. The plaintiffs in this suit, Messrs. Breul & Co., a well-known firm of merchants carrying on business in Bombay, seek to recover from the defendant, who is a dealer in sugar in a very large way of business, the sum of Rs. 3,300, alleging that that sum is due to them either as rent or as compensation for use and occupation of a certain godown in Clive Road for the months of December 1908, and January and February 1909 at the rate of Rs. 1100 per mensem.2. The godown in question is built on land leased out originally by the Trustees of the Port of Bombay to one Mulji Jivraj in the year 1883. This lease with the godown on the land, was about five years ago acquired by Mr. Luckumsey Napoo. Mr. Luckumsey let this godown to the plaintiffs for twelve months certain from the I st of April 1908 up to the 31st of March 1909 at a monthly rent of Rs. 1100. Messrs. Breul and Co. in their turn let the godown fo...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Umar Abdul Rahiman Vs. Gustadji Mancherji Cooper
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR354
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The applicant obtained this rule calling on the opponent to show cause why an order of the Assistant Judge of Poona should not be set aside as being without jurisdiction.2. The material facts are that a suit filed by the applicant in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona against the opponent claiming Rs. 18,197-13-0 had been heard by that Judge for some days when the opponent filed an application in the Court of the District Judge for transfer of the suit to another Court.3. The District Judge transferred the application to the Assistant. Judge for disposal.4. The Assistant Judge heard the application and ordered that the suit be transferred to the District Court Poona for trial.5. It is objected that this order was without jurisdiction as the application was under Section 24 of the Code (Act V of 1908) which gives power to the High Court or District Court (b) to withdraw any suit pending in any Court subordinate to it and (i) try or dispose o...
Tag this Judgment!Gadigeya Adiveya Hiremath Vs. Basaya Mallaya Rapati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR358
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the appellant to obtain a declaration that he was entitled to the fees and privileges appertaining to the Hiremath at Kamalapur by reason of his title to be called the Ayya of that Hiremath, and he asked for a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from using the name ' Ayya of Hiremath'. The Subordinate Judge, First Class, at Dharwar, who tried the suit, raised several issues, the first of which was:' Whether the matter in dispute in this suit cannot be adjudicated upon by a Civil Court', His finding upon that point was that the subject matter could ' be adjudicated upon excepting as regards the declaration about the privileges and dignities attached to the Hiremath'. He held that, so far as those privileges and dignities were concerned, the question raised was one relating to ' caste' within the meaning of the Bombay Regulation II of 1827, section 11.2. In the appeal Court the learned Assistant Judge disposed of the case on ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kashinath Bagaji Sali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR226
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of acquittal, passed by the Sessions Judge of Nasik. The accused, a servant of the Sinnar Municipality, was tried before the First Class Magistrate, Yeola Division, for the offence of criminal breach of trust by a public servant, in respect of Rs. 19 odd, and found guilty. In appeal the Sessions Judge has quashed the conviction, on the ground of the acquittal of the accused at a previous trial, where he had been tried for criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 12 odd, alleged to have been misappropriated during the same period as that to which the Rs. 19 related.2. The learned Sessions Judge's reasoning is that the trial for criminal breach of trust in respect of Rs. 12 must be treated as having been for the same offence as that in respect of Rs. 19; because both these sums were alleged to have been misappropriated during the same period, that is, from July 1907 to 1908. The learned Judge is of opinion that when the prosecutio...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›