Mumbai Court October 1911 Judgments
Mahomed Jusab Haji Adam Nurani Vs. Haji Adam Haji Oosman Nurani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR336
Hayward, J.1. The plaintiff a minor son sues by his next friend his mother to recover maintenance from the defendant his father. The plaintiff is a boy under seven years of age and in the lawful custody of his mother who has, however, been divorced by his father. It is sought to charge the maintenance on the father's property. The parties are Cutchi Memons subject in matters of inheritance and succession to Hindu law.2. The defendant pleads that a minor son cannot sustain a suit for maintenance against his father and that the amount claimed is excessive and not chargeable on the father's property. The first question to decide is the law applicable to the case. It has been contended that the English law under which the father's duty to provide maintenance is a motal and not a legat obligation, as pointed out at page 114, para. 266 of Vol. 17 of Halsbury's Laws of England, is applicable under the terms of the Letters Patent of 1823 continued in force by Clause 19 of the present Letters P...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Keshavlal Girdhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-17-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR144
1. The order is illegal. The Sessions Judge puts it on the ground that in effect he is only ' adjourning the proceedings at present' by not passing a sentence but instead calling on the accused to furnish security. In the first place, if it is an adjournment-which it is not, we think- no Court has inherent power to adjourn the passing of sentence in this way for an indefinite period and the Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion unreasonably. Secondly, the order cannot be treated as one of adjournment because the Sessions Judge has, as a matter of fact, directed security to be given. Such an order is legally and practically one of sentence. The order is quashed and the accused sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment....
Tag this Judgment!Rakhmini Mahadeo Lingade Vs. Dhondo Mahadeo Lingade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR128
Chandavarkar, J.1. The facts of this case are shortly as follows. The present plaintiff Dhondo and the present defendant No. 1 Rakhminibai filed a suit No. 77 of 1905, as co-plaintiffs, against one Chinto to recover possession of certain ornaments. In the plaint it was alleged that the ornaments belonged to the estate of Mahadeo, father of Dhondo and the husband of Rakhminibai; and the co-plaintiffs asked for a declaration that the property belonged to such one of them, either Rakhminibai or Dhondo, as might be held entitled by the Court.2. The Court of first instance who tried that suit held that the property belonged to Rakhminibai, because in the opinion of that Court they were her stridhan ornaments.3. There was an appeal by Chinto, and the appellate Court confirmed the decree on the ground that the ornaments were Rakhminibai's, because the second plaintiff in that suit, namely Dhondo, had not been proved by the evidence upon the record to be the son of Mahadeo. Therefore, there wa...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Nandkore Vs. Maganlal Varajbhukhandas Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1208; 12Ind.Cas.921
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case there was a contest between the claimants as to the right to a succession certificate in relation to a share belonging to a deceased testator. One of the claimants claimed as the heir of the testator's sister who, the other claimant said, had only a life-interest, and the other claimant claimed as remainder-man under the will upon the termination of the life-interest of that sister.2. The Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the heir of the sister whereas the Judge with appellate powers, on appeal, decided in favour of the remainder-man.3. The order granting the certificate was accompanied by a condition that security should be given, and upon the strength of the existence of that condition, it is contended before us that no appeal lay from the order of the original Court, In support of this contention the decision of this Court in Bai Devkore v. Lalchand Jivandas ILR (1894) 19 Bom. 790 has been relied on.4. Now that decision was given in a case ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Bhiwaji Vs. Gangaram Ganu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR22
Russell, J.1. This was a reference for the apportionment of the sum of Rs. 7,142-14-6 awarded as compensation by the Special Collector in respect of a house acquired by the Bombay Improvement Trust.2. The facts so far as they are material for this judgment are that one Ganu had three sons, Bhiva, Gangaram and Narayan. Gangaram was the step-brother to Bhiva and Narayan. The house in question was bought in 1869 for Rs. 700, the conveyance (Exhibit 1) being in the name of Bhiva who was then about 19 years old and was working as a printer for about 30 rupees a month. Gangaram was about two years the junior to Bhiva and two years senior to Narayan; and Narayan at the time of the purchase was about fifteen years of age working in a liquorshop.3. The Tribunal of Appeal held that the purchase money must have come from the father Ganu, and (after making some necessary deductions immaterial for this case) that the balance available for apportionment amongst these three persons was Rs. 5017-10-6,...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeo Lakshman Bhagvat Vs. Govind Mahadev Ghate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR124
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs are tenants of certain rice lands in the alienated village of Ramraj in the Thana District. The defendant is the Inamdar of the village, being owner of a share of 14 annas and 6 pies and mortgagee of the remaining interest.2. The plaintiffs sue for a declaration of their title to the varkas lands described in the plaint and to restrain the defendant from obstructing their enjoyment thereof and for restoration of possession if it be held that possession was with the defendant at the date of suit. In the first Court the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed but in the lower appellate Court the District Judge, though agreeing with the lower Court upon the questions originally raised, held that by reason of certain proceedings of the Revenue authorities taken on the introduction of the survey settlement to the village of Ramraj, the plaintiffs were occupants of the lands they claimed and entitled to hold them in perpetuity subject to payment of assessment t...
Tag this Judgment!ismailmiya Banemiya Vs. Wahadani Begam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR120
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The claim in this suit and in suit No. 408 of 1897 is that the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 be ordered to give to the plaintiff a turn of one-fourth share of the management of certain villages which the defendant Wahadani carries on.2. The facts found by the lower Courts are that the villages referred to in the prayer are three villages assigned by the ruling power in the 18th century for the support of a Darga and Khanga. The monastery was already attached to the Darga prior to 1708, the year of the first recorded grant of a village by the ruling power. In that year a Finnan of the Emperor Shah Allum was issued, whereby the village of Hatnur was granted to Hafizulla for expenses in connection with Fakirs and the monastery as ' money payable for the main-tenance of Syed Hafizulla, one of the children of Kutub Rubbini.' The village of Sundarde was granted in the year 1745 to Mahomed Yasin who is stated by the lower Court to have been a brother of Hafizulla, and the vi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›