Mumbai Court February 1912 Judgments
The Talukdari Settlement Officer Vs. Bhaijibhai Ishwardas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR577
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt. J.1. The Collector, holding powers of the Talukdari Settlement Officer, served upon the plaintiff on the 16th of October 1908 a notice acting under Section 79 A of the Land Revenue Code, as amended by Section 33 of the Gujarat Talukdars Act (Bombay Act VI of 1888). By that notice the plaintiff was distinctly informed that he must vacate the land because he held it illegally without any right. That notice was practically a declaration by the Collector that the sale and the mortgage, on the strength of which the land was occupied by the plaintiff, were null and void, and that, therefore, he was not entitled to possession. The plaintiff was warned that if he did not comply with the notice, then steps would be taken to evict him. The declaration and the notice were distinct acts on the part of the Collector done by him in his official capacity and, therefore, on the authority of the rulings of this Court in Chhaganlal Kishoredas v. The Collector of Kaira (1911) 12 Bo...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Balwant Singh Vs. the Rev. Rockwell Clancy and Rao Maharaj Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR422
John Edge, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from decrees of the High Court of Judicature for she North-Western Provinces at Allahabad, dated the 27th March 1906, which varied a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, dated the 14th April 1903.2. The suit in which these appeals have arisen was brought on the 26th September 1901, by the assignee of a mortgage to recover Rs. 5,67,978-8-0 principal and interest, claimed under the deed of mortgage. The mortgage-deed, which is dated the 28th October 1892, purports to have been made between Raja Sheoraj Singh Bahadur, mortgagor, of the first part, Maharaj Singh, the only brother of the said Raja Sheoraj Singh, of the second part, and the Bank of Upper India, Limited, of the third part. Sheoraj Singh and Maharaj Singh were, with others, made defendants to the suit.3. Sheoraj Singh was the sole mortgagor, and, by the deed of mortgage, Sheoraj Singh, declaring that he was the absolute owner in possession of the several villages, lands...
Tag this Judgment!Savalpuri Balpuri Vs. Bala Yadavshet Sonar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR566
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The Subordinate Judge found that although the appellants had ceased to be agriculturists at the date of the suit, yet they had purchased certain lands after that date, so that at the trial they were agriculturists in accordance with the principle, laid down by this Court in the three cases which he has cited, viz., Kondi v. Gunda (1882) P.J. 156, Padgaya Somshetti v. Baji Babaji ILR (1887) 11 Bom. 469, and Shamlal v. Hirachand ILR (1885) 10 Bom. 367. But although that fact was in favour of the appellants still it was not decsive of the case, because the appellants ought to have prove one of two things in order to entitle them to the provisions the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. They were bound t prove either that they were earning their livelihood wholly c principally by agriculture carried on within the limits of the district; or that they ordinarily engaged personally in agricultural labour within those limits. The first part of this definition the appella...
Tag this Judgment!Dhondi Mahipaty Vs. Radhabai Shabaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR569
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt. J.1. The lower Courts have found that Gaba was a divided member of the family of Kedari and Mahipati, originally joint. When Gaba died Bhiki as his grand-mother and heir inherited his property with a limited estate, and on the death of Bhiki the appellant, being the nearest male gotraja sapinda of Gaba, and therefore his reversionary heir, became entitled to the property in preference to the plaintiffs, the paternal aunts of Gaba : see Vrijbhukandas v. Bai Parvati ILR (1907) 32 Bom. 26 and Ganesh v. Waghu ILR (1903) 27 Bom. 610. We have been asked by Mr. Shingne, the learned pleader for the respondents, to hold that Bhiki took an absolute estate and that, therefore, on her death, the property in question which she had inherited from Gaba became her stridhan, and as such descended to the plaintiffs, her daughters. According to the settled law of this Court, the widow and the mother of a propositus, succeeding as heirs, take each but a limited estate for life. It i...
Tag this Judgment!Sayad NurudIn Saheb Refai Vs. Abas Bavasaheb Zari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR573
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt. J.1. This was a suit brought by the appellants for a declaration that they were entitled to celebrate the Urus of the saints mentioned in the plaint. or of any other saints. The appellants asked for a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from disturbing or invading the plaintiffs rights. The appellants also claimed in their plaint Rs. 10 as damages and prayed for other reliefs. The allegations on which those prayers were made were that appellant No. 1 was the Chief Guru of the Mahomedan religion and that his authority of jurisdiction extended over the whole of the Bombay Presidency. It was also alleged that two special Haks known as Refai and Kadri had been long enjoyed by the family of the first appellant: that the right to exercise these Haks in Ratnagiri or the Konkan province or in any other province of the Bombay Presidency belonged to appellant No. 1, and none else could exercise these rights except with appellant No. is permission; that none co...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Sri Sri Durga Prasad Singh Vs. Braja Nath Bose
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR445
Macnaghten, J.1. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was brought by the zamindar of Pergunnah Jharia, a permanently settled estate, in order to establish his right to the minerals underlying Mouzah Tasra and Mouzah Rohrabund. The two mouzahs are within his zamindari. They are both held by the Digwar of Tasra on Digwari tenure at a fixed rent of Rs. 64 per annum payable to the zamindar.2. Digwari tenure is similar to Ghatwari tenure. It was granted originally in consideration of the performance of military '*'* service, to which police duties were attached. The tenure is hereditary and inalienable. The Digwar is appointed by the Government and liable to be dismissed by the Government for misconduct. On dismissal the next male heir, if fit forth(c) office, is appointed.3. In 1892 the Digwar of Tasra granted a perpetual lease of the coal mines underlying the two villages. The lease became vested in the Tasra Coal Company, Limited. The Company took possession and raised and sol...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudev Mudaliar Vs. Sadagopa Mudaliar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR455
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated the 16th December 1908.2. On the 23rd September 1899 a suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam, founding upon a certain mortgage of date the 22nd September 1883, arid with the object of recovering the mortgage debt by sale of the mortgaged property.3. That Judge held that part of the claim was of a nature to which, under Article 132 of the 2nd Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act of 1877, the twelve years' rule of limitation would apply. The High Court, on appeal, held, on the other hand, that the Article applicable was No. 147, the sixty years' rule of limitation.4. On appeal to this Board, the latter decision was reversed and the former restored. This occurred on the 22nd July 1907. The Order itself, by His Majesty in Council, was dated the 12th August 1907.5. It appears that the question is one upon which there has been much diversity of opinion in India, a...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Parbati Vs. Saiyid Muhammad Muzaffar Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR460
John Edge, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from a decree of the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces at Allahabad, dated the 12th June 1907, which partly affirmed and partly reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, dated the 14th July 1904, by which the suit had been dismissed.2. The suit was brought on the 1st September 1903 to obtain proprietary possession of thirteen biswas, six biswansis, three tanwansis, six and a half kachwansis and a fraction of the twenty biswas of Mauza Lohari. The plaintiffs' case briefly was that one, Mehdi Ali, whose representatives in title they alleged themselves to be, had in 1846 mortgaged the shares in Mauza Lohari, possession of which they claimed, to Sita Ram and his son Sheo Lai; that the mortgage debt had been discharged by the usufruct; and that the defendants were the representatives of the mortgagees and still held possession under no other title; and the plaintiffs claimed a decree for proprietary posses...
Tag this Judgment!Jetha Bhima and Co. Vs. Lady Janbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR511
Beaman J.1. The material facts and date may be very briefly stated.2. In 1894 Balkrishna brought a suit against Mahomed Medhi, obtained a decree for the sum of Rs. 7000, and attached the right, title and interest of his debtor in certain properties, the said right, title and interest being variously computed in the arguments before me at from one to three lacs in the year 1896. Shortly after that attachment, the judgment-debtor Mahomed Medhi assigned the whole of his right, title and interest to the defendant in this suit Lady Janbai. I may neglect the decree in attachment of Moti Gulabdas, which attachment was subsequent to the private assignment to the defendant. In 1898 the present plaintiff brought a suit and obtained a decree against his debtor Mahomed Medhi. In 1899 Mahomed Medhi took the benefit of the Insolvency Act, and his insolvency with a short break, which is not material to any point or argument in this case, continued until Balkrishna's attachment was finally raised in t...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Ramchandra Shembekar Vs. Vithal Gopal Sahasrabudhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR560
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The appeal is preferred from a decree of the Subordinate Judge dismissing the suit, under the following circumstances. The suit was brought by the appellants to redeem the property in dispute according to the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act. The preliminary issue was raised in the Subordinate Judge's Court, whether the plaintiffs were agriculturists. That issue was found by the Subordinate Judge against the plaintiffs and he directed the plaintiffs to pay the requisite Court-fee within one week from the date of that finding. That order for the payment of Court-fee not having been complied with, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit under Order XVII, Rule 3. It has been held by the different High Courts that an order under Section 158 of the old Code of Civil Procedure, which is the same as Order XVII, Rule 3 is tantamount to a decree on the merits from which an appeal lies. Therefore, the final order made by the Subordinate Judge dismissin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »