Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR447
Sir Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which overruled the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Sitapur.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was brought by the present appellant in the last mentioned Court to establish title to and recover possession of an eight-anna share in the village of Bambhauri, the plaintiff's claim being based upon his alleged right to recover the property in question as heir to his father, Chaudhri Muzaffar Ali Khan. About the parentage of the appellant there is no dispute, and of all the questions raised in the case, one only remains for consideration on the present appeal, and that is whether the appellant is to be regarded as the legitimate son of his father. On this question the Subordinate Judge decided in the appellant's favour, but he was overruled by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner.3. Their Lordships of opinion that the learned Judges of that Court were right....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR648
Ameer Ali, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from certain decrees of the High Court of Madras made on the 26th of September, 1904, and 19th of January, 1905, respectively.2. The suits, which gave rise to the appeals, were, along with a number of others, instituted by the appellant Zamindar on the 15th of August, 1900, against his tenants of the village of Chevendra, in the Madras Presidency, under Section 9 of the Madras Rent Recovery Act (VIII of 1865) to enforce the acceptance of Puttahs tendered by him and the execution of Muchilkas corresponding thereto.3. Although this litigation has passed through several Courts in India, the matter in controversy lies within a small compass.4. Act VIII of 1865 requires landholders specified in Section 3, to which category the plaintiff belongs, to enter into written engagements with their tenants; and no suit or legal proceeding to enforce the terms of a tenancy is sustainable unless Puttahs and Muchilkas have been exchanged or 'unless it is p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR444
Collins, J.1. The story out of which the points involved in this appeal arise is rather intricate. On the 5th March, 1898, the appellant and two persons named Kishori Lal and Sri Ram instituted a suit against the predecessor-in-title of the respondent before the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad, for the recovery of more than a lakhe of rupees with future interest, by sale of property mortgaged under two documents dated respectively the nth May and the 13th December, 1894. On the 6th May, 1898, the claim was decreed by the first Court, but on appeal to the High Court at Allahabad that Court took the view that the learned Judge had placed undue pressure upon the defendant, who had asked for a postponement, on the ground of illness, to go on with the case, and accordingly set aside the decree which he had made and remanded the case for determination according to law.2. On the 30th January, 1901, the case came again before the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad and resulted in a decree for Rs. 7...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR682
Basil Scott, C.J.1. It is contended in this appeal that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that an application for execution of a decree, which had been passed in favour of two Hindu females during their minority, was not barred.2. The application was made in 1908 and at that date the age of the elder decree-holder was 27 and that of the younger decree-holder 21. There had previously been several applications for the execution of the decree, for, Ramji, the brother of the deceased guardian of the minors, had in 1904,1905 and 1906, presented different darkhasts purporting to act as the guardian of both the decree-holders.3. Now, as a guardian had been appointed for them they did not attain the age of majority until 21 and at the time of the applications in 1904, 1905 and 1906, the younger decree-holder was still a minor.4. It is, however, contended that the elder had attained the age of majority and that, therefore, the execution of the decree must be barred as regards h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR521
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. This is an application to quash a certain order passed by Mr. Cowan, First Class Magistrate, Belgaum, with reference to the trial of the petitioner pending before the said Magistrate on certain charges under the Indian Penal Code. This Court is also asked by the application either to order the committal of the petitioner for trial to some Court of Session other than that at Belgaum or to transfer the case against the petitioner from the Court of Mr. Cowan to the Court of some other Magistrate outside the district of Belgaum.2. The circumstances under which the application is made are briefly these.3. The petitioner, who is a pleader of the District Court at Belgaum, is being tried, jointly with others, before Mr. Cowan, on certain charges, on the strength of a sanction, granted by the District Magistrate at Belgaum, and confirmed by this Court. When, after the witnesses for the prosecution had been examined, Mr. Cowan was about to frame charges against the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR697
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff claims in this suit a declaration that the second defendant is not his son and that he was not born to the first defendant and for an injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from proclaiming to the world that the defendant No. 2 is plaintiff's son and from claiming maintenance for him as such son.2. The plaintiff is a Talukdar and the first defendant is his wife, who alleges that after leaving the plaintiff's house, a son was born to her who had been begotten by the plaintiff.3. No claim for maintenance has as yet been made on behalf of the second defendant. He is an infant less than two years of age and neither he nor any one on his behalf has set up any claim by him as heir to the estate of the plaintiff. The Talukdari estate of which the plaintiff is owner descends according to the rule of primogeniture, it is impartible and inalienable without the consent of Government and it has been held in this Court that although the son of a Talukdar i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 7Ind.Cas.452
ORDERMacleod, J.1. This is an application to the Court to sanction a compromise or arrangement bet been the Bombay Cotton Company in liquidation and its creditors. A meeting of the creditors was ordered to be summoned under Section 203 of the Indian Companies Act to consider the scheme proposed by the Company and at the meeting held on the 4th of April 1910 a three-fourth majority in value of the creditors present either in person or by proxies agreed to the scheme propounded.2. The scheme, treated generally, proposes that the creditors shall receive somewhere between nine and ten annas in cash on account of their claims and the balance in preference shares. The scheme provides for 17 1/2 lacs being raised on a mortgage of the. Company's property, which shall be paid, according to the scheme, to the present liquidator, who will distribute it amongst the creditors pro rata after deducting the expenses of the liquidation and the costs mentioned in the scheme. The creditors will also get ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR525
Macleod, J.1. This is an application to the Court to sanction a compromise or arrangement between the Bombay Cotton Company in liquidation and its creditors. A meeting of the creditors was ordered to be summoned under Section 203 of the Indian Companies Act to consider the scheme proposed by the Company and at the meeting held on the 4th of April 1910a three-fourth majority in value of the creditors present either in person or by proxies agreed to the scheme propounded.2. The scheme, treated generally, proposes that the creditors shall receive somewhere between nine and ten annas in cash on account of their claims and the balance in preference shares. The scheme provides for 171/2 lacs being raised on a mortgage of the Company's property, which shall be paid, according to the scheme, to the present liquidator, who will distribute it amongst the creditors pro rata after deducting the expenses of the liquidation and the costs mentioned in the scheme. The creditors will also get preferenc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR582
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sue as heirs of Narayan Govind Karandikar to have it declared that a purchase at a Court sale by the third defendant is not binding upon them. They based their claim upon the fact that by an award under which certain family property was divided between their father and his two cosharers of whom one is the judgment-debtor, it was provided that in case of a sale by any of the co-sharers of his portion of the house of residence he should sell it to his co-sharer for the aforesaid price of Rs. 1,800, that he should not sell it to an outsider until the expiration of two months from the date of a notice in writing saying that they (co-sharers) were not willing to buy it.2. It was held by the first Court that the correct reading and interpretation of the words 'if any one should have occasion to sell his share of the house of residence' was that the term of preemption was contemplated to attach to sales made privately and willingly and that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR487
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff or the second defendant was the person entitled as landlord to receive rent from the first defendant for property of which the latter was a mulgeni tenant.2. The last male owner of the property had two daughters Kuppi and Savitri. Kuppi was married to Ram Hegde. The heirs of Kuppi's husband Ram Hegde are plaintiffs in this case, Savitri is the second defendant.3. It is contended that on Kuppi's death Savitri acquired her interest in the property by survivorship. This contention is based upon certain Madras decisions of which the latest is Raja Chelikani Venkayyamma Gam v. Raja Chelikani Venka-taramanayyamma from which it appears that according to the Mitakshara as interpreted by the Madras High Court daughters inheriting from their father take jointly and do not take absolute interests in separate shares.4. In the Bombay Presidency, however, it has long been held that a. daughter taking property from her fath...
Tag this Judgment!