Mumbai Court September 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.
Bai Laxmi Vs. Harjivan Nathu and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1911
Reported in: (1912)ILR36Bom415
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit applied for leave to continue the suit as a pauper and such leave was granted by the Prothonotary. On the application of the defendant the question has been adjourned to the Judge under Bombay High Court Rule 82.2. On the 8th July an order was made in Chambers directing that the plaintiff should deposit Rs. 500 in Court as security for defendants' costs within a month, and that in default the suit was to be set down for dismissal. On the 31st July the plaintiff applied for leave to continue the suit as a pauper.3. On the 14th August the suit was set down for dismissal as no security was given, but as it was represented to the Court that an application to continue the suit as a pauper had been filed, an extension of time for giving security was granted. Applications to sue as a pauper are only made after notice to the defendant and not ex parte as under the Rules of the Supreme Court in England and hence the delay. The order for leave to continue...
Bibi Miyakhan Vs. Gulabchand Ramchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1189; 12Ind.Cas.923
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J. 1. The facts of the present second appeal are shortly these:--On the 6th of July 1900, Dagdu obtained a decree against Baba and applied in execution for its attachment. The property was attached, but on the 30th of July the parties entered into a private compromise with the result that Baba executed a sale-deed of the attached property in favour of the present appellant's husband. When that decree was satisfied, it is not quite certain; but one of the plaintiffs witnesses deposes that the decree was satisfied after the sale to the plaintiff's husband. However that be, we have this fact that this private satisfaction of the decree was certified to the Court and the darkhast of Dagdu was disposed of by the Court on the 1st of December 1902. Now, it is true that although the attachment must be regarded as having fallen to the ground on this latter date, yet we must see what the state of things was on the nth of August 1900, when the other decree-holder, namely, ...
imperator Vs. Tyebali Curimji Barodawalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1911
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.529
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The finding of the Magistrate is that the accused is one of the joint owners of the land in question on which about a hundred bullocks are kept, some in huts and some in the open, the bullocks being plied for hire; that the place is not licensed by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Act. The accused was charged with using the place without having taken out a license. The defence was that the bullocks did not belong to the accused and that he did not keep them or use the place for keeping them; that the bullocks belonged to tenants who had hired different pieces of the ground and put up huts and were keeping the bullocks. The Magistrate finds that the accused knew ever since March 1910 that bullocks were kept on the land and allowed it, and actually contemplated building a bullock stable, and that such rent as was received for the land was taken by him.2. The matter comes up on revision before us upon conviction of the accused on the...
Chunilal Jamnadas Vs. Bhanumati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1053; 12Ind.Cas.727
Hayward, J.1. The appellant decree-holder complains that the respondents judgment-debtors have wrongly been held to be agriculturists within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act and have wrongly had the execution of the decree against them transferred for execution to the Collector in accordance with the notification of Government under Section 320 of the old Civil Procedure Code (Act XlV of 1882) now Section 68 of the new Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908).2. The lower appellate Court held that the respondents were agriculturists because they were holders of certain service Inam land and were grantees of the soil and not merely grantees of a share of the revenue upon a true construction of their Sanad, and so were not excepted from the definition of agriculturist by Explanation (b) to Section 2 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. The lower appellate Court admitted that prima facie the Sanad was a grant not of the soil but of a share of the revenue, but held on ...
Hamabai F. Petit and Moosa Haji Hassam Vs. the Secretary of State for ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1097; 12Ind.Cas.871
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J. 1. I agree with Beaman J., from whose decree this appeal is preferred, that the English decisions, which were cited before him and which have also been cited before us in support of the appellant's contention as to the meaning of the term 'public purposes,' all turned upon its meaning with reference to the law of rating and cannot be safe guides in the present case, where different considerations have to be taken into account. Those were decisions upon the interpretation of a section in the Poor Relief Act of 1601 (43 Eliz. Clause 2), according to which the test for determining whether a particular property is liable to the rate there contemplated is that of beneficial occupation. No doubt, in determining what is beneficial occupation, the English Courts have gone on to consider whether the occupation is for a public purpose, a term which does not occur in the section of the Statute. But the rule of law to be deduced from them, as now prevailing, is that ther...
Devidas Dhanji Vs. Vithaldas Kashidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR1183; 12Ind.Cas.925
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J. 1. The facts are these. The suit was brought on a promissory note dated the 12th of June, 1905, and it was presented to the Court on the 11th of December, 1908. On the face of it, therefore, the suit was barred; but the plaintiff seeks to bring it within the period of limitation on the ground that on the 23rd of May he had applied for a conciliator's certificate under Section 39 of the Dekhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. That certificate was granted to him on the 31st of August 1908. But it appears that on the 10th of September, 1908, both he and the defendant made a joint application on the strength of a kabulayat executed by the defendant to the conciliator. The conciliator on receipt of that application held that the certificate, which had been granted on the 31st of August, had become useless. Accordingly, he gave a fresh certificate on the 3rd of December in compliance with the prayer in the joint application of the 10th of September. It is contended for ...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Sadashiv Abaji Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR77
Beaman, J.1. This case has assumed very large proportions, but we think, it can be disposed of in few words. We think, however, that we ought not to dismiss, it without paying a tribute to the great thoroughness and ability with which the learned Judge, who tried this suit, has dealt with the enormous mass of materials laid before him. In the argument before us it has become only too clear that an undue and quite an unnecessary strain was put upon that learned Judge, owing to the course taken by the litigation below. The whole of his learned and elaborate 'enquiry into the character of this particular Khoti is for our present purposes entirely irrelevant. So too is much else in that judgement which, however, may not prove to be labour in vain, since it always be useful for purposes of reference when kindled questions arise.2. The point before us, Forever, is extremely simple, and turns upon the construction of Sections 25, 28, 37, and 38 of Bombay Act 1 of 1865, and Sections 102-106 of...
Sahadu Manaji Shinde Vs. Devlya Jaba Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-01-1911
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR254
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The subject of these appeals is five Survey Numbers 68, 71, 75, 76 and 77, which were mortgaged with possession in the year 1873 by the plaintiffs' predecessors to the defendants' predecessors.2. The mortgage provided that interest should be payable every year; therefore the mortgagee, on default in payment of interest, obtained a money-decree against the mortgagor in 1876 for Rs. 500 on account of arrears of interest.3. On the 5th of October 1877, in execution of the decree, the Survey Nos. 68 and 75 were put up for sale and purchased by the mortgagee, and the Survey Nos. 71, 76 and 77 were about the same time put up for sale and purchased by one Balvant Jagannath who obtained possession.4. On the 7th August 187,9, Balvant Jagannath sold the three . Survey Numbers to the mortgagee who has been in possession of all the five Survey Numbers since that time, having only lost possesssion of three Survey Numbers at the time of the original sale to Balvant Jagannath....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›