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.
Ghelabhai Gavrishankar Vs. Hargovan Ramji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1171; 12Ind.Cas.928
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The suit, out of which this second appeal arises, was brought by the appellant to establish his right 'as hereditary priest of the Kachhia Kunbis of the Kasba section of Surat to officiate as family priest in the family of defendant No.1'. He alleged in his plaint that, from the time of the ancestors of defendant No.1, his ancestors had continued to be their family priests and that the defendant and his ancestors had continued to recognize his own ancestors as their hereditary priests. The claim was thus one known to Hindu law as that of yajman vritti of which the learned Editors of West and Buhler's Digest on Hindu Law say (page 411, 3rd Edition): 'The right to the fees and offerings thus becoming due from particular families or classes is regarded as a family estate...a subject for inheritance and partition like other sources of income.'2. The lower Courts, however, have negatived the appellant's claim on the ground that it involves a caste question. Thei...
Sayad Nahannu Pachhasaheb Vs. Sabinibibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1011; 12Ind.Cas.583
Beaman, J.1. We think that in this case there can be no doubt, speaking for myself I am sorry that it is so, because it is with some reluctance that we come to the conclusion that the defendants 1, 2 and 3 must be turned out of property in which doubtless they honestly believed they have, and in fact perhaps have been exercising, rights. The law appears to us to be clear against them.2. The material facts are that the porosities one Mahomed saheb, who originally owned this property, gave it to his wife Sabinibi as dower, somewhere about the year 1829. Of that gift there is no direct evidence, but there were judicial proceedings in 1862, in which the gift was brought in question and appears to have been recognized. Again speaking for myself I entertain considerable doubt whether a judgment in such a proceeding could be evidence.3. The learned Judge below, without going very far into this question, was clearly satisfied that in fact Mahoraedsaheb did make a gift of this property to his w...
Kisandas Manekchand Vs. Ramchandra Murar Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1009; 12Ind.Cas.589
Hayward, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to redeem their property from a mortgage, passed in satisfaction of certain decretal debts, with the sanction of the Court under Section 257 A of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act XLV of 1882). The defendants have raised only one point before us, namely, that the mortgage bond was sanctioned by the Court under Section 257 A of the old Code of Civil Procedure, and that therefore, the lower Court was debarred from going into the question whether the principal sum shown in the mortgage bond consisted partly of interest as required by the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. We have no doubt that the lower Court had jurisdiction to go into that question. The sanction of the Court under Section 257 A of the old Code of Civil Procedure was necessary in order to make the agreement, which would otherwise have been void, a good and binding contract. It does not appear that the section was intended to do anything more; and give any further an...
Khandacharya Martandacharya Vs. Govindacharya Narayanacharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1005; 12Ind.Cas.566
Beaman, J.1. This was a suit by a purchaser from Radhabai of certain property in which, he alleged, that she possessed a life interest. He was resisted by the defendant, who is a second cousin of Radhabai's husband. It may be convenient to state the relations in which the persons, mentioned in the judgments of the Courts below and in the arguments here, stand to each other. Starting from the common ancestor Bapu, he had two sons, Venkatesh and Dhondu, Dhondo had a son Martand ; Martand had a son Khando, who is the defendant in the present suit. Venkatesh had two sons Balacharya and Krishnacharya. Balacharya had two sons Keshav and Venkatesh. Keshav left a widow Radhabai and Venkatesh left a widow Ramabai. Venkatesh predeceased Keshav, who predeceased Ramabai, and last Ramabai died leaving, as the plaintiff contends, Radhabai as the sole surviving gotraja sapinda of that line, and therefore possessed of a life interest in all the property of the family, starting from the elder Venkatesh...
Trikam Purshottam Vs. Natha Daji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR863; 12Ind.Cas.359
S.N. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The question of Hindu Law, arising in this second appeal, is, whether under the Vyavahara Mayukha the half-sister or paternal uncle of the porosities is to be preferred as heir. Both the Courts below have preferred ha half-sister; and, in our opinion, they are right. It is admitted for the appellant that a full-sister is entitled to come in as heir before the paternal uncle; but it is argued that it is so because she is one of the specifically named heirs and that the word 'sister' (bhagini) does not include a half-sister. It is too late in the day to urge this argument in the face of the. decisions of this Court in Sakharam Sadashiv Adhikari v. Sitabai ILR (1879) 3 Bom. 353 and Kesserbai v. Valab Raoji ILR (1879) 4 Bom. 188. In the latter especially, the position of the half-sister in the line of heirs was carefully considered and determined. In the first, the opinion of a Shastri was referred to as giving preference to a half-sister to a step-mother (see ...
Tanaji Dagde Vs. Shankar Sakharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1002; 12Ind.Cas.564
Beaman, J.1. Both the Courts below have found that the purchase at the Court sale was a benami transaction. Either this benami transaction was free from or tainted with fraud. If free from fraud then the decision of the Courts below would be clearly right. If tainted with fraud, and this appears to be the truth from the defendant's own pleadings, then both the plaintiff and the defendant must be taken to have been parties to this fraud upon innocent third persons; and so the old rule, which was laid down more than a century ago, to govern such cases, would in my opinion apply: 'Let the estate lie where it falls.' Here in the events that have happened the estate has fallen into the hands of the defendant, and I can see no equitable ground upon which the plaintiff, himself a party to the fraud, as he now alleges, could expect us to transfer it from the defendant to himself. I think that while Section 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908) has no applicability directly to a cas...
The Ahmedabad Municipality Vs. Ramji Kuber
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR914; 12Ind.Cas.551
Batchelor, J.1. On 3rd July 1903 the plaintiff, who is the respondent before us, applied to the defendant Municipality for permission to reconstruct his house, building balconies on the Southern and Eastern sides. On the 25th July 1903 the Municipality, by the written 'permission note,' Exhibit 33, gave the plaintiff permission to rebuild his house according to the plan submitted, but in the body of the note no reference was made to the question of the proposed balconies. This omission was, however, supplied by a postscript, which ran as follows:-'As regards the building of balconies, your application is placed before the Managing Committee for decision whether the permission should, or should not, be granted. Therefore until this permission is granted, you must not do any work in this respect.' Then for a period of practically one year, i. e., until the 15th July 1904, the Municipality did nothing, having, we are informed, lost or mislaid the papers. At some time during this protracte...
Khushalchand Premraj Marwadi Vs. Nandram Sahebram Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR977; 12Ind.Cas.572
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The question of law arising on this second appeal depends on a few facts, which are not in dispute and may be shortly stated, so far as material.2. The plaintiff, who is respondent, having, in darkhast No. 1280 of 1900 in suit No. 614 of 1900, attached the property in dispute in execution of his money decree against his judgment-debtor, Bapu Sakharam, the Court ordered the property to be sold, and under Section 320 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882), then in force, transferred the execution to the Collector.3. While the Collector was in management accordingly, the plaintiff, on the 21st of May 1904, informed the Mamlatdar, who was carrying on the execution work on behalf of the Collector, that, as his judgment-debtor had satisfied the decree, the necessity for sale had disappeared, and that the darkhast 'should be disposed of.'the Mamlatdar submitted the record and proceedings of the darkhast to the Collector on the same day with the following...
Kassum Goolam HusseIn Vazir Vs. Dayabhai Amarsi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR973; 12Ind.Cas.547
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case a darkhast for execution was applied for by the assignee of the decree.2. Rule 16 of Order XXI provides that where a decree is transferred by assignment the transferee may apply for execution of the decree and the decree may be executed as if the application had been made by the decree-holder subject to this proviso that where the decree has been transferred by assignment, notice of the application for execution shall be given to the transferor and the judgment-debtor, and the decree shall not be executed until the Court has heard their objections, if any, to its execution.3. Being aware of the provisions of that Rule the transferee applied on the 18th of June 1910 for notices to the transferor and the judgment-debtor. He applied at the same time for attachment by seizure of the goods of the judgment-debtor in his shop. On the same day notices were issued by the Court and also a warrant of attachment. Before any objection had been heard on the part...
Dharma Bal Patil Vs. Balamiya Hajimiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR968; 12Ind.Cas.545
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The facts are that an occupancy was first declared forfeited under Section 56 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and thereafter it was disposed of by the Collector as provided for by Nos. 32 and 62 of the Rules made under Section 214 of that Code. It was disposed of by giving it into the occupation of the defendant, who signed a 'Kabulayat,' in Form B appended to the Rules. Some years after that, the Collector ordered the same occupancy to be taken from the defendant and given to the plaintiff, who had been the occupant before the forfeiture. The only question before us is, whether the Collector had power to do this. His proceedings are supported in argument by reliance on Rule No. 63. Therefore, the question is whether that rule empowers a Collector to do such a thing. Agreeing with the first Court and differing from the appeal Court we hold that it does not. Rule 63 empowers a Collector to restore a forfeited occupancy to the original occupant. But when a forfei...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »