Mumbai Court November 1911 Judgments
Nathubhai Narandas Vs. Manordas Laldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR325
Russell, J.1. This case raises an important and difficult question. Two references, Nos. 5 and 7 of 1904, under the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, were decided by the Assistant Judge of Thana, who in No. 5 ordered that the whole amount of the award, viz., Rs. 2005-0-5 should be paid to the mortgagee Manordas Laldas, each party bearing his own costs, and in No. 7 confirmed the Collector's award, Manordas having objected that the amount awarded by the acquiring officer was too little.2. Appeal No. 328 of 1909, of the District File, was decided by the acting District Judge of Thana who dismissed it with costs.3. The above second appeal has been filed in this Court and the preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Rao, for the respondent No. i, that no second appeal lies, and he relies in the first place upon Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act. That provides that :-Subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to appeals from original decrees, an appeal shall lie to...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pestonji Jehangir Hormusji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR507
Macleod, J.1. A certain plot of land, abutting on Hornby Road known as 'The Dispensary Plot,' was vested in the City of Bombay Improvement Trust under Schedule C of Bombay Act IV of 1898. Thereafter, Government sought to acquire this plot for the extension of the Victoria Terminus Station of the G. I. P- Railway, and notified Their desire to acquire it under the Land Acquisition Act, in August 1908. Proceedings followed before the Collector for ascertaining the amount of compensation payable, in which the parties appearing were the Improvement Trust and one Pestonji Jehangir, who was in occupation of the premises under an agreement with the Improvement Trust. The Collector fixed the compensation payable at the rate of Rs. 80 a square yard, and though Pestonji disputed the award, on the ground that that figure was inadequate and asked for a reference to the High Court on that account, he did not pursue the matter when it came before the Court and so far the reference is dismissed with c...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Rajaram Vs. Khandu Balu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR340
Davar, J.1. In August 1909, Malubai, an old woman belonging to the Telagu community of Bombay, presented a petition to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. After investigation, the Prothonotary, on the 28th of September 1909, granted leave to sue as pauper and her petition then became her plaint in this suit. Malubai used to be a Muccadum of a gang of working women and was, previous to May 1908, possessed of a small house at Kamatipura worth about two or three thousand rupees. She apparently had no nearer relatives than the four sons of her three predeceased brothers. On the 8th of May 1908, she executed a deed of gift whereby she unconditionally transferred and made over her house as a free gift to one of her four nephews named Khandu Balu. She filed this suit for the purpose of having that deed of gift cancelled and the title-deeds of her property returned to her.2. In her petition she stated that she had intended to leave her property to her four nephews after her death, that Khandu...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: the Land Acquisition Act
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1911
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom76
Macleod, J.1. A certain plot of land, abutting on Hornby Road, known as 'The Dispensary Plot,' was vested in the City of Bombay Improvement Trust under Schedule C of Bombay Act IV of 1898. Thereafter, Government sought to acquire this plot for the extension of the Victoria Terminus Station of the G.I.P. Railway, and notified their desire to acquire it under the Land Acquisition Act, in August 1908. Proceedings followed before the Collector for ascertaining the amount of compensation payable, in which the parties appearing were the Improvement Trust and one Pestonji Jehangir, who was in occupation of the premises under an agreement with the Improvement Trust. The Collector fixed the compensation payable at the rate of Rs. 80 a square yard, and though Pestonji disputed the award, on the ground that that figure was inadequate and asked for a reference to the High Court on that account, he did not pursue the matter when it came before the Court and so far the reference is dismissed with co...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadas Dahyabhai Vs. Bai Suraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR250
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This was an application by the applicant, under Section 293 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882, to recover from the opponent the deficiency of price on a re-sale of the applicant's interest in a house purchased at the first sale by the opponent.2. The lower Court rejected the application on the ground that owing to an error in the proclamation of the re-sale, the property re-sold was not the same as the property sold.3. The applicant, who was the judgment-debtor, appealed.4. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court held that the learned Subordinate Judge had attached excessive importance to a mere clerical error in the re-sale proclamation.5. The errors in the proclamation are stated by the Sub-ordinate Judge as follows:-The proclamation Exhibit 18 is for the first sale. In the body of the process the property is described as belonging to the plaintiff, that is, to Shivlal Bhagwan. And yet in the title this Shivlal is entered as the defendant. Then in th...
Tag this Judgment!Sakharam Bhagwan Patil Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR353
Russell, J.1. An important question is raised in this suit. The plaintiff, on the 21st July 1911, filed the present suit against the Secretary of State for India, the substance of which is that he complained that by an order, dated so long ago as 1909, by the District Deputy Collector, an officer in the service of the defendant, it was directed that the land which is described in clause 1 of the plaint belongs to Government and that he (plaintiff) has trespassed upon the said land, and, therefore, he (plaintiff) be ordered to vacate and give possession of the land. It is worthy of note that in that paragraph 3 of the plaint no mention is made of the year in which that order was passed.2. That being so, it is not necessary to set out the further details of the plaint. But it appears that from 1909, down to about the middle of July 1911, the plaintiff was occupying himself in filing the necessary appeals against the orders of different Government officials with reference to this original...
Tag this Judgment!ThakuraIn Lekhraj Kunwar Vs. Thakur Harpal Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR33
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by Thakurain Lekhraj Kunwar(the plaintiff) from the decree of the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces of India, dated the 29th of May 1908, which set aside the decree in the plaintiff's favour of the District Judge of Jaunpur, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit and certain objections which had been filed by her.2. In the suit in, which the decree now under appeal was made the plaintiff, who was the widow of Sheopal Singh, claimed proprietary possession of the riasat of Singra Mau in the district of Jaunpur, and mesne profits. The defendants to the suit, who are respondents to this appeal, are Thakur Harpal Singh, a distant cousin in the male line of Sheopal Singh, Shamsher Bahadur Singh, a younger brother of the father &of; Thakur Harpal Singh, Raghuraj Bahadur Singh, and Rampal Singh, minors, sons of Shamsher Bahadur Singh, and Thakurain Janki Kunwar, the widow of Rudarpal Singh, who was a brother of Sheopal Singh, and had died wi...
Tag this Judgment!Durga Prasad Lahiri Chowdhuri Vs. Srimati Sashibala Debi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR177
Macnaghten, J.1. The High Court having decided in the former suit that the document in question has no effectual binding power over the estate, and does not affect it in any way as between the parties, that issue must be considered to be decided, and the suit fails.2. That being so, their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty to dismiss the appeal, and the appellants must pay the costs....
Tag this Judgment!Dalpat Zopdoo Paul Vs. Mahadu Uka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR259
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. We cannot entertain this reference because we do not think that the Collector has any power to make it under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code read together with Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act.2. Section 113 of the Code says that any Court (within which term the Collector acting under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, Section 23, is included) may state a case and refer the same subject to the conditions and limitations prescribed.3. Order XLVI, Rule 1, shows that the conditions prescribed are that a reference shall be before or on the hearing of the suit or appeal in which the decree is not subject to appeal, or where, in the execution of any such decree, any question of law or usage having the force of law arises, on which the Court trying the suit or appeal, or executing the decree, entertains reasonable doubt.4. The Collector is not a Court trying a suit or appeal or executing a decree. He, therefore, has no power of reference. He appears to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Moorji Maneck Vs. Passu Parbhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR629
Heaton, J.1. Whatever my personal view may be regarding the delegation of powers to the Prothonotary under Rules 81 and 321 of the Bombay High Court Rules, I find that the practice in the Prothonotary's office is that applications to issue short notice under Rule 321 are made to and disposed of by him. From the enquiries I have made I have reason to suppose that this practice is based on a legal interpretation of these Rules; and I further have no doubt that the legal interpretation in favour of the practice is one which it is quite open to an authority to take, on the terms of the Rules themselves. I am entirely new to the practice and procedure of this side of the Court and I am indisposed to act on a personal view of the interpretation of the Rules, which would interfere with the established practice. Therefore I hold that the notice of motion in this matter is not bad....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »