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.
Bir Bikram Deo Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR812
Macnaghten, J.1. These are consolidated Appeals and Cross Appeals from judgments and decrees of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces in part affirming, in part varying, and in part reversing judgments and decrees of the District Judge of Raipur.2. The zamindar of Khariar in the district of Raipur, and other zamindars in that district, proprietors of estates varying in extent and importance, have sued the Secretary of State for India in Council, complaining that they have been illegally deprived of rights to which they were indefeasibly entitled. from time immemorial, and that by the requirement of Government officials they have been compelled to execute wajib-ul-arz or administration papers containing provisions in derogation of their undoubted privileges. Their contention is that the provisions of which they complain are illegal and ought to be expunged or annulled, and that the rights of which as they allege they have been improperly deprived ought to be restored by the...
Lalji Nensey Ludha Vs. Keshowji Punja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR840
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 ame...
Emperor Vs. Dwarka Poonja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR146
ORDER1. There is no evidence that the accused jumped into the well to commit suicide; his own version is that he jumped just to avoid and escape from the Police. The evidence shows that he came out of the well of his own accord. The Court therefore/quashes the conviction recorded against and sentence passed upon the accused Dwarka Poonja....
Ramchandra Shivjiram Vs. Tama Ragho Manglya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR390
Chandavarkar, J.1. The plaintiff (who is respondent in this second appeal) alleged in her plaint that the salt-pan in dispute in which she had interest to the extent of one-third had been leased away during her minority to the appellants for a period of three years on a rental of Rs. 500 a year by her guardians and one Dharman, who owned the remaining two-thirds share; that, on the expiry of that period, she, having obtained the age of majority, let her interest for two years to the appellants on a rental of Rs. 1,000 a year. She sought to recover the rent of those two years at that rate and also Rs. 653 as rent due on the previous lease.2. The appellants in their written statement admitted the respondent's ownership of the salt-pan and also their tenancy under her and Dharman, but they contended that they had been in possession from the beginning under a lease for five years, not three years, as alleged in the plaint.3. Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act requiring that ' a le...
The Bombay Steam Navigation Company, Ltd. Vs. Ramdas Vithaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR532
Macleod, J. 1. This is an interpleader suit brought by the Bombay Steam Navigation Company to determine the question of title to 135 bales of cotton in their hands. The first defendant firm claimed that they were entitled to stop the goods in transit as the unpaid vendors of the consignee, the third defendant. The second defendants claimed delivery as the holder of the;railway receipts given by the Madras and Southern Mahratta Railway Company for the goods which had been endorsed to the second defendants by the consignee to secure an advance of Rs. 15,000.2. Ramdas Vithaldas Durbar and Jivraj Vussonjee, the partners in the first defendants' firm, were carrying on business as commission agents at Bagalkote in the Bijapur District.3. Defendants 3 and 4 were carrying on business in cotton at Bombay, Bagalkote and other places.4. At Bagalkote the cotton season commences in April and continues till August. There were business transactions in 1909 and 1910 between the first defendants and de...
Lalji Nensey Ludha Vs. Keshowji Punja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-11-1912
Reported in: 17Ind.Cas.193
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 amended; and on the...
Bhagvant Ramchandra Vs. Kaji Mahamad Abas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR387
Chandavarkar, J.1. We are indebted to each of the pleaders for appearing in this reference as amicus curiae. Mr. Nilkanth has placed before us all the available authorities on the point and argued the Reference in support of the plaintiff. But we are of opinion that our answer to the Reference must be that the claim is barred by the law of limitation prescribed in Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We agree with the Subordinate Judge in the view he has taken, namely, that the decree having been obtained by the plaintiff's father and time having once begun to run under Section 9 of the Limitation Act, no subsequent disability, that is. the minority of the plaintiff, could arrest it. Once the limitation began to run from the date of the decree, the twelve years' period must be computed from that day. The point is practically decided by this Court in Jivraj v. Babaji ILR (1904) 29 Bom. 68. With this answer the Reference must be returned to the Subordinate Judge....
Dagdu Anandram Vs. Mirasaheb Tanhaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-08-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR385
Chandavarkar, J.1. The minors concerned in this case, it is found, were not agriculturists at the time of the suit. But the Courts below have given them the benefit of the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act under the second definition of Section 2, Clause (2), of the Act. According to that section, we must see what the definition of 'agriculturist' was at the time the liability was incurred. That definition was the same in 1893 that it is now, an 1, therefore, we have to see whether the minors concerned, either by themselves, or by their servants, or by their tenants, earned there livelihood' wholly or principally by agriculture. It is found as a fact by the learned District Judge that at the time the liability was incurred these were minors depending for their support on their father who was an agriculturist at that time, and, therefore, their income, if they can be said to have had an income, was chiefly derived from agriculture. That was because they depended upon ...
Mahadev Sakharam Parkar Vs. Janu Namji Hatley
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR115
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. We answer the question referred in the negative. Symbolical possession is not real possession nor is it equivalent to real possession under the Civil Procedure Code except where the Code expressly or by implication provides that it shall have that effect.2. Sections 264 and 319 of the Code of 1882 prescribed and impliedly gave effect to symbolical possession under certain specified conditions but symbolical possession was neither prescribed nor recognised by Sections 265 or 318 of that Code or by the corresponding sections of the earlier Codes nor in our opinion do the Bengal Full Bench decisions, Jitggobundhu v. Ram Chunder By sack ILR (1880) Cal. 584 and Joggobundhu v. Purnanund ILR (1889) Cal. 530 suggest the contrary.3. Under the new Code of 1908, Rule 35 (2) of Order XXI provides one additional case in which symbolical possession may be resorted to.4. We overrule Gopal v. Krishnarao ILR (1900) 25 Bom. 275 and Mahadeo v. Parashram ILR (1900) 25 Bom. 358 whi...
Narhar Raghunath Naphad Vs. Krishnaji Govind Nadgavandi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-03-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR381
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. In holding the execution of the decree in the darkhast before us barred under Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the lower Court has overlooked the important consideration that the decree contemplated by the section should have been in all its parts ripe for execution on the date from which the twelve years' period of limitation is computed.2. The decree in the present case was passed on the 14th of December 1892 and the present darkhast was presented on the 14th of December 1910. The decree consisted of four parts. In the first place, it directed that its holders should be put in possession of certain land, mortgaged to them by the judgment-debtors, and that the former should enjoy the profits of the land for twenty years, in satisfaction of the amount due on the mortgage. The second part ordered the judgment-debtors to pay to the decree-holders a certain amount of money annually in the nature of cash allowance. The third part directed that if in any ye...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »