Mumbai Court June 1910 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.
Cecil Gray Vs. the Cantonment Committee of Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR615
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. This Court has held in The Cantonment Committee, Poona v. Burjorji Bomanji ILR (1889) 14 Bom. 286, relied upon by Mr. Shortt in his able and careful argument in support of this appeal, that a Cantonment Committee, formed under rules framed under the Indian Cantonments Act (XIII of 1889) is a quasi body corporate. It is unnecessary to express any opinion on the correctness of that decision, because the question before us is whether, for the purposes of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Cantonment Committee is a 'public officer' as defined in Section 2, clause (17) of the Code.2. Under that section, the expression 'public officer means (inter alia) 'a person', who is an 'officer-whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property; on behalf of Government.' A Cantonment-Committee is, according to the rules made under Act XIII of 1889,' a Cantonment authority,' which is charged with the management of a fund called 'the Ca...
Cecil Grey Vs. the Cantonment Committee of Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.679
1. This Court has held in The Cantonment Committee, Poona v. Burjorji Bomanji 14 B. 286, relied upon by Mr. Shortt in his able and careful argument in support of this appeal, that a Cantonment Committee, formed under rules framed under the Indian Containments Act (XIII of 1889) is a quasi body corporate. It is unnecessary to express any opinion on the correctness of that decision, because the question before us is whether, for the purposes of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a Cantonment Committee is a 'public officer' as defined in Section 2, Clause (17) of the Code.2. Under that section, the expression public officer 'means (inter alia) a person', who is an 'officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of Government.' A Cantonment Committee is, according to the rules made under Act XIII of 1889, a Cantonment authority,' which is charged with the management of a fund called 'the Cantonment Fund'. That is vested in His Maj...
Yellappa Ramappa Kuri Vs. Marlingappa Chavadappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR577
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. It has not been contended before us, nor does it appear to have been contended in the Court below by either of the defendants, that the orders passed and the action taken by the Collector in consequence of those orders in 1865 were illegal. One of the rules then in force and having the force of law under Act XI of 1852 provided that, in case of the discharge of a shet-sanadi without fault, but because his service was no longer required, his shet-sanadi land should be allowed to remain in his possession, subject to the survey assessment, and that no further demand could be made. And this is substantially what the Collector did in respect of the land in dispute on the death of Bashya in 1865. The shet-sanadi service required of Bashya's branch of the family was dispensed with upon the ground that there was no necessity for it; full survey assessment was imposed upon the land; and Bashya's heir was allowed to remain in possession, subject to the survey assessm...
Vishvanath P. Vaidya Vs. the London and Lancashire Life Assurance Comp ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR717
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiff in this case had monetary dealings with the late Dwarkadas Dharamsey. In 1904, there was a balance of about Rs. 9000 due to the plaintiff on current account. The plaintiff also accommodated Dwarkadas by signing notes in favour of the Bank of Bombay to the extent of Rs. 50,000, and in order to secure him obtained a deposit of shares from Dwarkadas. In November, 1904, Dwarkadas sub. stituted two policies on his life, one in the London and Lancashire Assurance Company and the other in the New York Assurance Company, in substitution for the share certificates. The liability of the plaintiff on the notes signed by him continued owing to the notes being renewed from time to time until November, 1907, when the notes were paid off; but the policies remained with the plaintiff from November, 1907, until April 1909, when again he became responsible on bills drawn by Dwarkadas Dharamsey to the extent of Rs. 25,000. The liability increased to Rs. 75,000 in July 1909; bi...
Lalu Dayal Vs. Lalu Gopal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR573
Batchelor, J.1. The controversy here, so far as we are now concerned with it, turns upon the question of the right of succession to one Nagar Valabh, and the relation between the parties is shown in the following table :-First wife = Valabh = Second wife | |Kuverji Nagar = Benji| |Dayal Bai Batan| |Lalu (plaintiff) Nagji2. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that a deed of mortgage executed in 1857 by Bai Benji in favour of a deceased uncle of the defendants was null and void. He prayed for recovery of possession of the mortgaged property and offered to redeem the mortgage if it should be held to be good in law. He alleged that the property originally belonged to Nagar Valabh and consisted of Bhag aid Gamotia lands and houses and Gabhan building sites. He claimed to be Nagar's heir in preference to Bai Ratan's son, Nagji, on the ground of a special custom applicable to Bhagdari villages in the District, that is, the Broach District, under which custom he, as a pitrai male relative of ...
Baslingappa Parappa Chedachal Vs. Dharmappa Basappa Chedachal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR586
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and of other members of a religious community at Deshnur to have a declaration of their right of marching in procession with a car along a particular public road to certain temples, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs.2. The suit arises out of an application made by members of the plaintiffs' community to the District Magistrate under the local Police Rules for permission to hold the procession and to march with the car along the road. The Magistrate not being convinced of their legal right so to use the public road referred them to a civil Court for a declaration of that right.3. The members of another religious community who occupy land abutting upon the road at a point where the width of the road way is defined by two gates called Mulla Agashi and Durga Agashi, have put in a written statement denying the right of the plaintiffs to march along the road.4....
Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan Vs. Nawab Husaini Begam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR638
Ameer Ali, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiff, a Mahomedan lady, against the defendant, her father-in-law, to recover arrears of certain allowance, called Kharch-i-pandan, under the terms of an agreement executed by him on the 25th October, 1877, prior to and in consideration of her marriage with his son Rustam Ali Khan, both she and her future husband being minors at the time.2. The agreement in question recites that the marriage was fixed for the 2nd November, 1877, and that 'therefore' the defendant declared of his own free will and accord that he ' shall continue to pay Rs. 500 per month in perpetuity ' to the plaintiff for ' her betel-leaf expenses, etc., from the date of the marriage, i.e., from the date of her reception, ' out of the income of certain properties therein specifically described, which he then proceeded to charge for the payment of the allowance. 3. Owing to the minority of the plaintiff, her ' reception ' into the conjug...
Mahant Damodar Das Vs. Adhikari Lakhan Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR632
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Calcutta, dated the 6th June, 1905, which over-ruled that of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, dated the 30th September, 1902.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises, was filed in the last-mentioned Court, by the plaintiff appellant in his character as Manant of the Math or Temple of a Hindoo Deity at Bhadrak in Balasore, and the object of the suit was to recover possession of certain properties situate at Bibisarai in Jajpur, the suit being based upon the allegation that the properties were debottar property, dedicated to the worship and service of the plaintiff's Thakur, and held by the defendant as an Adhikari in charge of what was said to be a subordinate Math of Bibisarai.3. The first Court decided in favour of the plaintiff. That decision was reversed on appeal by the High Court on the ground that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. Their Lordships are of opinion that the learned Judges of th...
Maharaj Kedar Nath Vs. Thakur Ratan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR656
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh.2. It seems that before the annexation of Oudh two estates, called Bhart and Sherpur, belonged to an undivided Hindu family, the members of which then were three brothers, Gayadin, Umrao, and Ratan. They were born of different mothers. Gayadin was much the eldest, and a man of about middle age. He was the manager. The other two were minors. Umrao was quite young, and Ratan at the time was a mere child. After the confiscation the Government was minded to restore the family property, and a grant of it was either issued or in immediate contemplation, when it was discovered that Gayadin was in possession of a quantity of concealed arms. The property was again confiscated, and Gayadin was put in prison. Then Gayadin or his servants made disclosure of similar offences committed by other landholders, and so induced the Government to look favourably on his case. Ultimately the Government made him a grant of ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›