Mumbai Court July 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.
Emperor Vs. Ramchandra Bhaskar Mantri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR669
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The question of law before us arising on this rule is as to the meaning of the words ' owners of the several premises,' occurring in Section 305 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act (Bombay Act III of 1888). 2. The question arises under the following circumstances :- One Zaoba parcelled out certain land belonging to him in plots for building purposes and gave each plot on lease for a fixed term (30 years). Each lessee erected on his plot a building at his own expense. The petitioner before us is one of those lessees. There is a private street adjoining the plots and it was with reference to it that the Municipal Commissioner of Bombay called upon the lessees, the petitioner included, to level, metal, drain and light the said street on the ground that they were 'owners of the several premises fronting or adjoining' it within the meaning of Section 305 of the Act. They having refused to comply with the requisition, the Commissioner filed a complaint against th...
FakiruddIn AmiruddIn Vs. Abdul HusseIn Peerbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1910
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR326
Robertson, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff prays for a declaration that a certain sale-deed of the 19th January 1904, whereby Noorbibi purported to convey certain immoveable property, situate at Ripon Road, to the defendant, is void; that the said deed might be set aside and the plaintiff declared the owner of the whole of the said property; and, further, that the defendant be ordered to reconvey the said proporty to the plaintiff and to deliver up possession. He also prays for an account of the rents of the said property since the 19th of January 1904.2. The plaintiff is the son of one Amiruddin, who died in Bombay intestate on the 2nd December 1894, leaving him surviving as his heirs and legal representatives his widow Noorbibi and the plaintiff. Amiruddin's brother Tamuzuddin had predeceased him on the 18th day of October 1892. He also died intestate leaving as his heirs and legal representatives his widow Jenaboo and two daughters and his full brother Shaik Amiruddin. After the dea...
Rustomji Ardeshir Irani Vs. Vinayak Gangadhar Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR723
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sues as the purchaser at a Court-sale of the interest of two judgment-debtors Shapurji and Pestonji in a certain land and bungalow under a trust-deed of Hormasji Sorabji, dated the 23rd of December 1893. His cause of action as alleged in the plaint is the discovery that neither of the judgment-debtors, whose interest the Court purported to sell, had any saleable interest in the property. The relief which he prayed for was, possession of the property described in the plaint, or, in the alternative, return of the purchase-money on the footing of a total failure of a consideration.2. His claim succeeded as regards the return of the purchase -money in the first Court, but in the lower appellate Court his suit was dismissed.3. A preliminary objection has been taken that as the amount decreed in respect of purchase-money and interest in the first Court amounted to less than Rs. 500, this was a matter which could not be the subject of a second appeal.4. ...
Lala Bhagwat Sahai Vs. BepIn Behari Mitter
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR997
Arthur Wilson, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Calcutta, dated the 5th May, 1905, which reversed those of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, dated the 4th February, 1904. 2. The sole question for decision on the appeal is whether the appellants are entitled to partition of certain properties, as against the opposing respondents.3. In order to dispose of this question, it is sufficient to deal very broadly with the facts. It is enough to say that the appellants are proprietors of a Mokurrari interest in the properties in question, the opposing respondents being owners of a fractional share in the Zemindari interest in the same properties.4. In the judgment appealed against it was held, in accordance with an earlier decision of a full Bench of the same Court, that the fact of the party on one side of the dispute being in a lower grade of title than those on the other side was not necessarily a bar to partition.5. Their lordships agree with the opinion...
Debi Bakhsh Singh Vs. Chandrabhan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR1015
Shaw, J.1. This suit had reference to the succession to more than one estate, but the issue which remains contested on this appeal has regard solely to the Taluq of Rajpur Keotana and other lands of which the defendant (appellant) had obtained possession on the death of the widow of one Raghuraj Singh.2. The respondent as plaintiff brought a suit against the appellant to obtain possession from him of that Taluq. The Subordinate Judge, on the 13th September, 1906, dismissed the suit. On the 5th July, 1907, this judgment was reversed by a decree of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, and against that decree the present appeal is made.3. The situation of the parties is thus briefly described:-The Rajpur, Keotana estate was conferred upon Raghuraj Singh by a Government Sanad in the year 1860. Raghuraj Singh's name was entered in Lists 1 and 5, mentioned in the Oudh Estates Act, 1869, section 8. Raghuraj Singh died intestate and without issue in 1892. His estate passed into the possession of...
Emperor Vs. Sakharam Pandu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR667
1. This Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the proceedings of the trial Magistrate. All he has done is to take some evidence for the complainant. Having taken that, he found that the offence complained of appeared to have been committed within the limits o! a Native State and therefore cognizable only under the conditions specified in the proviso to Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That proviso requires that such an offence should not be inquired into without a certificate of the kind mentioned therein. There is nothing in the language of the proviso making illegal the obtaining of the certificate after the complaint has been filed and the inquiry has begun or been completed to the extent that has happened in this case. Section 532, on which the District Magistrate relies, applies only to a commitment to a Sessions Court. We must, therefore, decline to interfere and direct the trial Magistrate to deal with the case according to law....
Emperor Vs. Shankar Shrikrishna Dev
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR675
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The seditious character of the publication called the ' Ekashloki Gita,' has not been disputed by Mr. Weldon in arguing this appeal on behalf of his client, who has been convicted by the District Magistrate of West Khandesh under Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner made a declaration, under Section 4 of the Press Act XXV of 1867, that he was the owner of a certain press called the ' Atmaram Press,' where the book in question was printed. The District Magistrate has held mainly on the strength of that declaration, and one or two other circumstances, that it must be presumed that the petitioner was aware of the seditious character of the book and that he did take part by its publication in bringing Government into contempt.2. A declaration, made under Section 4, is intended by the legislature to have a certain effect, namely, that of fastening responsibility For the conduct of the press on the person declaring in respect of matters where pu...
Mojilal Premanand Vs. Gavrishankar Kushalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR947
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is a suit instituted by Sarasvatibai, widow of Premanand Parbhudas and sister of Jethabhai Valavram, for a declaration that she is the heir of her brother Jethabhai and as such owner of the residue remaining after administering his property under his will.2. Jethabhai Valavram by his will dated 20th of February 1889 gave certain legacies including one of Rs. 300 to the plaintiff and by the last clause provided as follows :-With the property that might remain after paying as above the expenses of my obsequies are to be defrayed. I do make disposition in this way in my consciousness and in order to carry out these dispositions, I appoint after me the following gentlemen as trustees : Dave Gavrishankar Kushalji, Desai Mojilal Premanand, Dave Parbhashankar Purshotam, Desai Desaibhai Kalidas and Desai Maneklal Amratlal, Out of these five, Dave Gavrishankar Kushalji and my nephew Desai Mojilal Premanand should both join and take possession of my properties after...
Krishnaji Sakharam Kulkarni Vs. Maruti AppA.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR762
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is a redemption suit filed by the plaintiffs who contend that they are agriculturists.2. The principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage whereby the property was first mortgaged was Rs. 300, and the plaintiffs contend that that was superceded by a sham document expressed to secure Rs. 360.3. Now for the purpose of suits valuation the principal money expressed to be secured by the instrument of mortgage is the test. It is therefore a suit in which the subject matter does not exceed in amount or value Rs. 500, and if the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act applies, no appeal would lie from any decree or order.4. The preliminary issue, whether the plaintiffs were agriculturists, was determined by the Subordinate Judge in favour of the plaintiffs.5. From that decision an appeal was filed but before it was heard by the District Judge, the pleader of the defendant asked that it might be-converted into an application in revision under Sec...
Emperor Vs. Akbar Badu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR663
Heaton, J.1. In this case two accused persons, Akbar Badu and Anwar Abashi, were tried for house-breaking and theft by the Sessions Judge at Nadiad and both were convicted. Akbar has appealed and with his appeal we have to deal.2. The Sessions Judge has admitted and considered, against the appellant, a good deal which is not evidence at all.3. Statements made by the witness Chhagan to the Police implicating the appellant have been admitted and used.4. The same witness Chhagan's statement to the Panch and his statement as an accused person made before a Magistrate were admitted and used.5. They were inadmissible for reasons I will explain later.6. Then statements made by the co-accused Anwar to the Police were admitted and used. They were altogether inadmissible as evidence of the appellant's guilt, for they could at most be regarded admissions by the co-accused which could possibly be used against himself but could not be proved and used against the appellant. (See Section 21 of the Ev...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »