Mumbai Court August 1911 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.
Pandurang Balaji Khandke Vs. Dnyanu Babaji Gurav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1169; 12Ind.Cas.926
Beaman, J. 1. This was a suit to recover possession of property dedicated to an idol. The defendant relied upon adverse possession, but the finding of the lower appellate Court was against him. His contention here is that the plaint property was sold so far back as the year 1870 in execution of a decree obtained against the then manager of the endowed property. Since then the defendant contends that the possession of the purchaser at the Court sale has been adverse to the idol. The plaintiff, on the other hand, presses the view that each successive manager, except where the office is hereditary, takes in virtue of his appointment, and that, therefore, no limitation begins to run against him, in respect of the alienations of the endowed property, made by his predecessor in the office. We think, however, that the defendant's contention both in principle and upon authority is good. We have considered the terms of the sale-certificate and we find that it was there stated, in the preamble s...
Keshav Dhondi Sinde Vs. Jairam Gangaram Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1031; 12Ind.Cas.709
Beaman J.1. This rule was issued calling upon the opponent to show cause, why an order passed by Mr. Wadia, Assistant Collector of Sholapur, purporting to revise the decree of a Mamlatdar's Court, should not be set aside, as being in the first place a nullity, or failing that, as having been made without jurisdiction or in excess of the jurisdiction vested in that Officer.2. The principal point to which our attention has been invited is whether an Assistant Collector, merely in virtue of being placed in revenue charge of certain portions of a District, is thereby empowered to exercise all the powers conferred upon the Collector of the District by Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act (Bombay Act II of 1906).3. On a first view, it would appear that an Assistant Collector could not be so authorized; but in opening his case Mr. Branson very candidly, and very rightly, I think, drew our attention, to Section 10 of the Land Revenue Code; and after having given that section our very best ...
Salebhai Abdul Kader Basrai Vs. Bai Safiabu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1025; 12Ind.Cas.702
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiffs sued the executrix and other heirs under the will of their deceased grandfather Ismailji to recover a legacy alleged due to them under the will of the said deceased Ismailji.2. The defendants pleaded that the claim was time-barred; that the legacy was invalid to more than the extent of one-third of the estate owing to the want of assent of the other heirs; that the legacy could not be given effect to owing to more than one-third of the estate having been already left by a prior clause of the will in Wakf.3. The original Court decided that the suit was time-barred; that the legacy was invalid to more than the extent of one-third of the property; that there was no assent of the other heirs and that the legacy could, therefore, not be given effect to as one-third of the property had been validly left by a prior bequest in Wakf. The original Court, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs.4. On appeal it has been argued with regard to the question of limitation ...
R.D. Sethna Vs. the National Bank of India Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR998
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff is the Receiver appointed in suit No. 31 of 1909 for the administration of the estate of Ambaram Motichand who died in 1900. The second defendant is the surviving executor of the will of Ambaram. The first defendant, a Bank, is the holder of certificates and transfers of twenty shares in the Textile Manufacturing Company deposited with them as security by the second defendant.2. The undisputed facts are that after the death of his co-executor in 1905 the second defendant obtained possession of the certificates for the shares abovementioned from the Bank of Bombay in which they were lodged and got them transferred in the books of the Textile Company into his own name from the name of the deceased Ambaram. On the 22nd of September 1908 he pledged ten of the twenty shares with the defendant Bank, and on the 16th of October 1908 he pledged the other ten shares with the Bank. Upon the security of these pledges he received Rs. 16,000 which he fraudulent...
Madanji Devchand Vs. Tribhowan Virchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1121; 12Ind.Cas.892
Basit Scott, Kt., C.J. 1. The plaintiffs as heirs of Ruttonji Shamji prayed for a declaration that two shares in the Manockji Petit Spinning and Weaving Company and four shares in the Bank of Bombay standing in the name of the 1st and 2nd defendants belonged to and formed part of the estate of Ruttonji Shamji and that the plaintiffs and the 5th defendant (and two other defendants now deceased) were the absolute owners thereof and of all dividends accrued due thereon and for consequential relief by transfer of the shares and payment of the dividends. 2. Ruttonji Shamji was a Dassa Shrimali Bania of the Jain religion domiciled at Mangrole in Kathiawar who died without issue and possessed of considerable property on the 18th of November 1892 leaving two widows Monghibai and Nandoobai. Monghibai died on the 16th of August 1893 leaving a will whereof she appointed executors. After her death litigation was commenced by the executors claiming from Nandoobai part of the property left by Rutton...
Raja Bahadur Shivlal Motilal Vs. the Tricumdas Mills Company Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR45
Davar, J.1. In this case some very interesting an important questions of law arise for consideration, and therefore it is necessary to set out accurately the facts as they are either admitted or proved, before entering into a discussion of the several points to be decided between the parties.2. The plaintiff, Raja Bahadur Shivlal Motilal, is a wealthy banker of Deccan Hyderabad, who carries on an extensive business as banker, merchant and commission agent, through his munim and other servants in Bombay. The defendant is a Joint Stock Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act of 1882 and is now in liquidation. The principal director of the Company and the senior partner in the firm of its Secretaries, Treasurers and Agents, was the late Dwarkadas Dharamsey, who, after perpetrating many daring financial frauds, on the 28th of August 1909 committed suicide. Immediately on the death of Dwarkadas, a petition was presented to this Court, and by an Order made on th...
Raja Bahadur Shivlal Motilal Vs. the Tricumdas Mills Company, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR36Bom564
Davar, J.1. In this case some very interesting and important questions of law arise for consideration, and therefore it is necessary to set out accurately the facts as they are either admitted or proved, before entering, into a discussion of the several points to be decided between the parties.2. The plaintiff, Raja Bahadur Shivlal Motilal, is a wealthy banker of Hyderabad (Deccan) who carries on an extensive business as banker, merchant and commission agent, through his munim and other servants in Bombay. The defendant is a Joint Stock Company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act of 1882 and is now in liquidation. The principal director of the Company and the senior partner in the firm of its Secretaries, Treasurers and Agents was the late Dwarkadas Dharamsey, who, after perpetrating many daring financial frauds, on the 28th of August 1909 committed suicide. Immediately on the death of Dwarkadas a petition was presented to this Court, and by an Order made on t...
Pannalal Nathulal Marwadi Vs. Ganu Babaji Nhavi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1021
Chandavarkar, J.1. The first point urged in support of this appeal is that the learned Judge has reversed the judgment of the first Court, without giving an opportunity to the present appellant of adducing the evidence, which he did not adduce in that Court under the impression that the Subordinate Judge was satisfied with the evidence of the witnesses whom the appellant had already examined.2. Now, to that argument the answer is given by the decision of this Court in Gulam v. Haji Badrudin ILR (1888) 13 Bom.235.3. This case is even stronger than that, because, in this case it is not the Court which stopped the present appellant from examining more witnesses than he had already examined, but it is the pleader of the appellant in the Court of first instance who thought that, having regard to the expression of opinion by the Subordinate Judge in the midst of the case, it was unnecessary for him to examine any more witnesses. But pleaders ought to remember that the Subordinate Judge's is ...
Mahomedbhai Husseinbhai Vs. Ismail Haji Halimbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1014; 12Ind.Cas.586
Beaman, J.1. The appellants have obtained a decree against the respondents for accounts from 7th December 1901 to July 1902 in respect of a house owned jointly by Huseinbhai and Sulemanji their respective predecessors in interest.2. The appellants have raised only one question, that is of limitation. They have contended in the first place that under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, the six years should be counted from July 1902, the date of the death of the accounting party Sulemanji; and that as the suit was brought within six years of that date, they are entitled to open up the whole account without any further bar of limitation. The appellants appear to have been encouraged to raise this contention owing to the somewhat elaborate, though in our opinion irrelevant, criticisms in the decided cases made by the learned Judge of the first appeal Court. The ultimate result of his discussion is what should have been clear to him from the beginning that there was no escape whatever from t...
Merali Visram Vs. Sheriff Devji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1017
Beaman, J.1. This was an appeal against a decree purporting to be made upon an award of the 30th of June 1904 in His Britannic Majesty's Court at Zanzibar, the decree itself, giving effect to the award, was not made until the 7th April 1909.2. The appellant is met at the outset with the objection that no appeal is allowed against the decree passed upon an award, except in so far as that decree can be said to be in excess or contravention of the terms of the award; and it became very clear that this objection must prove fatal to the appeal, as brought.3. Mr. Jinnah for the appellant then asked the leave of the Court to convert the appeal into an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It has, I think, been the practice of this Court always to allow, in proper cases, appeals to be so converted into applications for the exercise of this Court's power of superintendence and revision. We, therefore, acceded to Mr. Jinndh's request, and we have dealt with what was origi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »