Mumbai Court August 1911 Judgments
The Municipal Commissioner Vs. Mancherji Pestonji Choksey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1130; 12Ind.Cas.906
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff is the owner of a house and compound abutting on Elphinstone Road near the point where it is intersected by two lines of Railway. In 1902 it was decided that an over-bridge should be built carrying the Elphinstone Road over the railways. On the 4th of March 1903 the then Municipal Commissioner Mr. Harvey in order to provide for the changed conditions which would result from the building of the over bridge prescribed on the northern side of the Elphinstone Road a line as the regular line of the street, purporting to act under the power conferred by Section 297 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, which ran as follows: 'The Commissioner shall prescribe a line on each side of any public street within which except under the provisions of Section 310 no portion of any building abutting on the said street shall after such line has been prescribed be constructed.'2. The line so prescribed was not recorded on the usual plan in the Municipal office a...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Alimia Abasimia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR304
ORDER1. The Court quashes the order of the First Class Magistrate of Ahmedabad and directs that the currency note of Rs. 50 be returned to the finder Alimia Abasimia....
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bombay and anr. Vs. Muncher ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR36Bom405
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff is the owner of a house and compound abutting on Elphinstone Road near the point where it is intersected by two lines of Railway. In 1902 it was decided that an over bridge should be built carrying the Elphinstone Road over the railways. On the 4th of March 1903 the then Municipal Commissioner Mr. Harvey, in order to provide for the changed conditions which would result from the building of the over bridge, prescribed on the northern side of the Elphinstone Road a line as the regular line of the street, purporting to act under the power conferred by Section 297 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, which ran as follows: 'The Commissioner shall prescribe a line on each side of any public street within which except under the provisions of Section 310 no portion of any building abutting on the said street shall after such line has been prescribed be constructed.'2. The line so prescribed was not recorded on the usual plan in the Municipal office and ...
Tag this Judgment!Sayad Jiaul Hassankhan Vs. Sitaram Bhau Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1040; 12Ind.Cas.720
Beaman J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff to enforce his right of pre-emption. The suit was originally brought by the pre-emptor himself who has since died, and it is, therefore, now being carried on by his heirs and legal representatives. The main ground of contention in the first Court upon the preliminary issue, whether the right to sue died with the pre-emptor; and whether the suit abated; was that the pre-emptor was a Shafer and that according to the Mahomedan Law of that sect the right of pre-emption survived.2. The first Court recorded the plaintiff's evidence and held that it was insufficient to establish the feet that the deceased pre-emptor was a Shafer. Accordingly the learned Judge below held that the pre-emptor's right died with him and that the suit abated.3. In appeal the appellant while still contending that the pre-emptor belonged to the Shafei sect, takes a further point that under Section 89 of the Probate and Administration Act, which is expressly extended ...
Tag this Judgment!Maharana Ranmalsingji Bhagvatsingji Vs. Mahashankar Nilkantha Bhatt
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1047
Beaman, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff against the Talukdari Settlement Officer of that time, Mr. Bhimbhai, to recover damages for certain alleged wrongful acts performed by the defendant in the recovery of certain cesses, which he alleged to be due from the plaintiff.2. Before the suit had proceeded far, it appears that the Talukdari Settlement Officer, through his pleader, applied that the Thakor of Sanand and Koth, whose agent he (the Talukdari Settlement Officer) was, in these proceedings, should be joined as a necessary party. The District Judge of Ahmedabad raised a preliminary issue and held that the Thakor of Sanand and Koth was a necessary party to the proceedings. He was accordingly joined ; but no amendment appears to have been made of the plaint and no further relief claimed against the Thakor, who then stood on the record as the second defendant.3. During the pendency of the litigation Mr. Bhimbhai died. His successor in the office of the Talukdari Settlement ...
Tag this Judgment!Bagas Umarji Miyaji Vs. Nathabhai Utamram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1057; 12Ind.Cas.737
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The main facts of the case are that the plaintiff seeks to redeem a mortgage effected prior to 1854. The representatives-in-title of the mortgagee, claiming to be absolutely entitled, mortgaged the land with possession to the fifth defendant's predecessor-in-title, Achratlal Govandas, in 1894. This suit was filed more than twelve years later and the fifth defendant claims as against the plaintiff the interest of a mortgagee by virtue of his adverse possession under Article 134 of the Limitation Act. The lower appellate Court has upheld this contention, which is supported by the authority of three judgments of this Court: Yesu Ramji Kalnath v. Balkrishna Lakshman ILR (1891) 15 Bom. 583; Maluji v. Fakirchand ILR (1896) 22 Bom. 225; and Ramchandra v. Sheikh Mohidin ILR (1899) 23 Bom. 614, in all of which a mortgagee from one who professed to hold absolutely was held to be a purchaser for valuable consideration within the meaning of the Article. It is contended for...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Parappa Alur Vs. Yellu Viraswami Shirawale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1038; 12Ind.Cas.714
Beaman J.1. The only question here was whether the widow was to forfeit her succession to her husband, on the score of unchastely. The allegation of the plaintiff was that that unchastely was committed during the husband's life-time, and at his express desire. It is conceded that the husband and wife lived, to all appearances, happily up to the time of the husband's death. In these circumstances it appears, to us that the decision arrived at by the lower Courts was perfectly right. We think that it would be a dangerous principle, where the husband and wife have lived together, without any open breach of marital relations up to the husband's death, to allow mere outsiders to come in and impute acts of unchastely to the wife during the period of her covertures. That is, speaking for myself, entirely opposed to the general policy of the law in dealing with the relation of husband and wife. We also think that the decisions of the Courts below rest upon very good authority, if we treat them...
Tag this Judgment!JasudIn Ambir Saheb Faki Vs. Sakharam Ganesh Shrotri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1042; 12Ind.Cas.693
Russell, J.1. This case raises a curious and interesting point. The plaintiff Jasudin sued to recover from the defendant Sakharam Ganesh the sum of Rs. 2,350-11-5 which he said was due to him under a contract dated the 21st of July 1904. The terms of the contract are to be found in the receipt Exhibit 26. In that document it appears that the defendant, who is the occupant of about twenty Survey Numbers in the village Indgaon in the Vada Taluka, agreed to sell teak and blackwood trees in those Survey Numbers to the plaintiff at Rs. 6 per every 100 Stumps. The plaintiff was to pay certain fees and expenses in connection with those trees etc. Rs. 15 was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as earnest.2. At the time when this contract was entered into there was in existence Government Resolution No. 7114, dated the 27th of September 1897, (to which we have referred) whereby (when the right to the after-growth was no longer disposed of with the standing trees but was reserved to Governmen...
Tag this Judgment!Muljibhai Narbheram Bhatt Vs. Lakhmidas Dadabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1034
Beaman, J.1. There were two brothers Kishorbhai and Desaibhai. The plaintiff is admitted to be the nearest heir of Kishorbhai, and the defendant of Desaibhai. Kishorbhai left a widow Bai Kanku, who resided in the house, which is the subject-matter of this suit, until her death. The plaintiff's case is that during the lifetime of Kishorbhai and Desaibhai they affected a partition of their house property, as a result of which, the house in suit fell to the share of Kishorbhai and became his exclusive property. This was held to be so, as a fact, in the lower appellate Court. But the appellant contends that the present suit is res judicata by reason of a suit brought by Bai Kanku in 1884, for her share of the lands, which had constituted part of the joint property of the brothers Kishorbhai and Desaibhai. That point was taken in the Court of first instance and elaborately discussed. The learned Judge there came to the conclusion that the suit of 1884 did not bar the present suit; and the p...
Tag this Judgment!Parvatibai Bhagirath Teli Vs. Chatru Limbaji Teli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1023; 12Ind.Cas.708
Hayward, J.1. The lower Courts have held that the plaintiff is entitled to maintenance at the rate of one rupee a month from date of suit. They have, however, declined to grant arrears of maintenance for the four years previous to the suit. On second appeal before us the only question argued has been whether the arrears were properly refused in consequence of failure to prove demand and refusal. No doubt such a rule was laid down in certain decisions of the Madras High Court, but a contrary view was taken by Ranade J. in the case of Ambabai kom Balaji Vinayak Kale v. Ramchandra Balaji Kale (1895) P.J. 44, in this Court. The only ground upon which the arrears might in this case have been refused would appear to be that indicated by Sargent C. J. in the case of Girianna Murkundi Naik v. Honama ILR (1890) 15 Bom. 236, where he stated: 'It is now well established that a Hindu widow is not bound to reside in her deceased husband's family house, and does not forfeit her right to maintenance ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »