Mumbai Court January 1912 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.
Kunwar Ragho Prasad Vs. Lala Mewa Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR212
Macnaghten, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, which affirmed a decree of the Court of Small Causes there exercising the powers of a Subordinate Judge.2. The suit was brought by the respondents Mewa Lal and Lachmin Narain to recover property of which they had been deprived through the intervention of a Government official who attached it and got it sold in order to satisfy a debt due to Government from somebody else.3. The facts are undisputed.4. On the 17th of December 1895, the respondents, who were mortgagees of shares in. seven villages belonging to their mortgagor one Tufail All Khan, obtained the usual decree for sale. The 17th of April 1896 was the date fixed for payment of principal, interest, and costs which amounted in all to Rs. 19,290-9-6. The mortgagor made default. On the 23rd of April 1896, the mortgagees applied for an order absolute. The order was drawn up on the :6th of May following. On the 24th of March 1897 an application was made ...
Sapurlo Sabshetti Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR414
Chandavarkar, J.1. There were only two points urged by the learned Counsel in support of this appeal in his opening address, first, that there was a valid contract as between the Government and the plaintiff, who is the appellant, in consequence of his application to the Commissioner to purchase this land, and the acceptance by him of the conditions which were imposed by the Commissioner in consequence of that offer. It was urged that after the Commissioner had accepted the plaintiff's proposal to purchase this land by receipt of the money, it was not competent to Government to rescind the Commissioner's order, because, it was said, the acceptance vested the title in the appellant. It is not necessary to go at length into the reasons for disallowing this argument, because the learned Counsel has himself given it up in his rejoinder.2. It is clear, from the provisions of the Land Revenue Code, and from the correspondence which passed between the different officers of Government, at the ...
Emperor Vs. Somnath Karunashankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR135
1. We agree with the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mr. C. N. Mehta, both in his reasoning, and also in his conclusion upon the evidence adduced for the prosecution. He has concurred with both the asssessors. It maybe that the complainant's case was not exactly that which had been found proved by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. But a criminal Court is not bound by all the statements of the complainant. Its duty is to find out the truth in the midst of the conflicting evidence. It is urged, however, as to the document which has been found to be forged that the learned Judge has treated it as an acknowledgment which saves limitation, whereas in law it is more than an acknowledgment because its terms show that it is a contract within Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act and contains a promise to pay. The answer to that is very simple whatever its legal aspects may be. The question about the document is : How did the parties deal with it; how did the appellant deal with it and ...
Emperor Vs. Kanji Shivaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR137
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal against an acquittal, and though the arguments have run to a considerable length, I am myself of opinion that the case is really a simple one. It appears to me that the learned Judge below involved himself in detail to such an extent that his attention was diverted from the cardinal points in the case. I regret to have to add that in my opinion the judgment is inaccurate in several statements as to the effect of the evidence, and that the strictures which the learned Judge allowed himself to pass upon the Committing Magistrate cannot be justified and should not have been made.2. I note that counsel for the respondent has not attempted to support the acquittal on the grounds on which it was rested by the Sessions Judge, but has restricted himself to this contention, that whatever inaccuracies may be found in the judgment, they did not operate to the prejudice of the Crown case against the particular respondent now before us.3. Then it was urged upon us ...
Lalji Nensey Ludha Vs. Keshowji Punja and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom340
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the dismissal by Mr. Justice Beaman of a suit filed by the plaintiff, as the sole surviving partner of a firm carried on by himself and his father Nensey Ludha in the year 1903, in which year the defendants incurred certain obligations to that firm. The plaintiff alleged that his father died on the 4th of February 1905 and that the plaintiff then became the sole owner of the firm. The defendants put in a written statement in the year 1906, putting in issue the allegation that the present plaintiff was a partner with his father Nensey Ludha.2. The suit came on for hearing on the 8th July 1911 and the first issue raised was whether the plaintiff, was a partner with his father Nensey Ludha in the firm of that name. Certain evidence was recorded. The plaintiff alleged a partnership and he was cross-examined, and as a result of the hearing on the first day it was apparently suggested that the plaintiff could not succeed unless the plaint was a...
Mata DIn Vs. Sheikh Ahmad Ali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR192
Robson, J.1. In this case the appellant has been unsuccessful, first, before the Subordinate Judge at Lucknow, next before the District Judge of Lucknow, and lastly before the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh. The Court of the Judicial Commissioner granted a certificate for an appeal to their Lordships' Board on the ground that the case raised a question of law as to whether the transfer of a Muhammadan minor's property by a person who was not his natural guardian should be upheld, if made to discharge a debt payable by the minor.2. The facts of the case are these :--Sheikh Ahmad Ali, the respondent, was the grandson of Amir Haider, who, in his lifetime, was possessed of two villages, Kabirpur and Karora. Amir Haider mortgaged a 15 annas share in Kabirpur to the defendant-appellant on the 2nd December 1885, and on the 7th August 1886 he executed another mortgage in favour of the same creditor of a 4 annas share in Karora. The mortgages provided that the mortgagee should take,...
Syed Mahomed Ibrahim HosseIn Khan Vs. Ambika Pershad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR280
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated the 3rd of March 1905, which varied the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Patna of the 8th of July 1902.2. The suit was brought on the 22nd of September 1900, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge on a simple mortgage of the 17th of February 1888, to recover Rs. 12,000 as principal, Rs. 23,150 as interest to the date of suit, and future interest until realization. That mortgage, as will later appear, was executed in favour of Mussammat Alfan, whose heirs assigned it to the plaintiffs on the 16th of June 1891. The plaintiffs also claimed to have it declared that the properties covered by the mortgage of the 17th of February 1888, and by a sarpeshgi deed of the 20th of November 1874, were liable for the entire decretal amount; that certain of the defendants should be directed to pay the decretal amount to the plaintiffs within a time to be fixed by the ...
Venkatramanbhat Shankarbhat Vs. Padmanabh Parambhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR393
Chandavarkar, J.1. The learned District Judge has clear erred in law in holding that because it is competent for the minor either to disaffirm or to affirm the contract when he arrives at the age of majority, therefore, it is advisable to dismiss the present suit. The District Judge allows that as matter of law the suit must be entertained, but on the ground mentioned he has non-suited the plaintiff. It is true that it is open to the minor to either affirm or disaffirm a contract entered into by his guardian but not binding upon him, but a the same time it is the right of the guardian protecting the interests of the minor to sue on such contracts on his behalf when such a suit is brought it is the duty of the Court the entertain it and dispose of it according to law and not 0n grounds of expediency, real or supposed. If the Court refuse to give relief on the ground that the suit can be brought by the minor after he has arrived at the age of majority, then the minor's interests may be s...
Jivaji Sambhaji Kambli Vs. Fakir Sabaji Kambli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR395
Chandavarkar, J.1. The first question is what is the relief which the plaintiff has asked for by his plaint in this suit and, secondly, whether that relief is barred by the provisions of the Vatan Act.2. It is urged before us by Mr. Desai that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit because what is asked by the plaintiff is not any relief which would be prohibited by Section 67 of the Vatan Act, but a mere declaration that he is a member of Sambhu's branch, and that as such he has a two-thirds share in the Vatan belonging to that branch. We have had the plaint in the original read out to us and we have carefully considered its terms and its prayer. The summary of it as given by the Subordinate Judge in his judgment is substantially correct. In his plaint the plaintiff complains that he belongs to Sambhu's branch of the Vatan family; that Sambhu was the head of that branch so long as he was alive; that he dealt with the revenue authorities, executed kabulayats, and owned ...
Bai Parson Vs. Bai Somli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR400
Chandavarkar, J.1. The only question for decision on this Second appeal, arising under the Vyavahara Mayukha, is whether the sons of a woman, who inherit her Stridhan property, take it jointly as co-parceners or severally as tenants-in-common.2. The lower Courts have held that they take it severally as tenants-in-common, on the authority of the Full Bench ruling of the Madras High Court in Karuppai Nachiar v. Sankara-narayanan Chetty ILR (1903) Mad. 300. That decision has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court, consisting of the learned Chief Justice and Batchelor J. in Dattambhat bin Appanbhat v. Yamnabai kom Rambhat S.A. No. 277 of 1911, decided on the 1st December 1911. Both these decisions are under the law of the Mitakshara. It is urged in support of this second appeal that the law of the Mayukha is otherwise. Reliance is placed on the passage in that authority, where the word daya (heritage) is defined and then explained by the author, Nilakantha (Ch. IV, Section 2, plac...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »