Mumbai Court June 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.
Loftus Otway Clarke Vs. Brojendra Kishore Roy Chowdhury and Srimati Bi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR717
Macnaghten, J.1. The pecuniary amount involved in this appeal is comparatively trifling. But the case is one of grave importance, and their Lordships are compelled to add that, in their opinion, there has been a serious miscarriage of justice in both the Courts which dealt with the matter in India.2. In April 1907, Mr. Clarke, the appellant, was the District Magistrate of Mymensigh, an extensive district in the Province of Bengal. The principal suit, the result of which governs this consolidated appeal, was brought by the first respondent, as plaintiff, claiming damages for trespass on the allegation that Mr. Clarke had illegally and wantonly searched his cutcherry, and that Mr. Clarke had not only acted illegally, but that he had acted out of personal malice and illwill. The suit originally brought in the Court of the Third Subordinate Judge of Mymen-singh was transferred, at the plaintiff's instance, to the High Court in its Extraordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction. It was tried by ...
Chaudhri Mohammad Mehdi Hasan Khan Vs. Sri Mandir Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1073
Ameer Ali, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from a judgment and decree of the Judicial Commissioners of Oudh, dated the 31st of July 1907, and arise out of a suit brought by the plaintiff in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Barabanki on the basis of a mortgage-bond executed by the defendant Choudhri Mehdi Hasan on the 22nd of December 1898, in favour of one Sukh Dei, since deceased. It appears that Sukh Dei carried on in her lifetime a money-lending business, and that the plaintiff has obtained a succession certificate under Act VII of 1889 to collect the debts due to her estate. The present action was launched on the 16th of February 1906 for the recovery of over Rs, 62,000, principal and interest, by the sale of the mortgaged premises. At the time of the institution of the suit the plaintiff produced only a copy of the document, alleging that the original had been lost. The defendant in his answer admitted its execution, but alleged that the debt was discharged. In suppor...
Bai Gulab Vs. Thakorelal Pranjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR36Bom622
Narayan Chandavarkar, A.C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether a Hindu minor is competent to make a will. The right of a Hindu to make a will is based upon the principle that he is competent to make a disposition of his property to take effect after his death to the same extent to which he can make a disposition of it in his own life-time as a gift. It is clear law that a Hindu minor cannot make a gift of his property in his life-time. If that is so, it follows that he cannot make a will in respect of that property.2. But it is argued in the present case that though the testatrix, having been under eighteen years of age, was a minor according to the Indian Majority Act, she was more than fourteen years' old and that, therefore, under the Hindu Law she was not a minor. On that ground we are asked to hold that, according to that law, she was competent to make a will.3. But the Indian Majority Act has modified the Hindu Law on the question of minority except in respect of dower, di...
Lakshmanrao Krishnaji Limaye Vs. Balkrishna Rangnath and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1912
Reported in: (1912)ILR36Bom617
Narayan Chandavarkar, Acting C.J.1. This second appeal raises the question of res judicata under the following circumstances. On the 8th of September 1893 defendants Nos. 2 and 3 mortgaged the property in dispute to the plaintiff. Some time after that, a creditor of the said defendants, who had obtained a money-decree against them, attached the property in execution and was about to bring it to sale in 1893, when the plaintiff applied to the Court for an order that the property should be sold in execution of the decree, subject to his, that is, the plaintiff's mortgage of the 8th of September 1893. In that miscellaneous proceeding the Subordinate Judge raised this issue : Had the plaintiff the mortgage lien claimed by him? And as the result of his investigation the Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff's bond was invalid and unenforceable, because it was not attested by two witnesses, as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff then brought a regular s...
Lakshman Krishnaji Limaye Vs. Balkrishna Rangnath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1912
Reported in: 16Ind.Cas.1002
1. This second appeal raises the question of res judicata under the following circumstances: On the 8th of September 1893, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 mortgaged the property in dispute to the plaintiff. Some time after that, a creditor of the said defendants, who had obtained a money-decree against them, attached the property in execution and was about to bring it to sale in 1893 when the plaintiff applied to the Court for an order that the property should be sold in execution of the decree-holder's rights subject to his, that is, the plaintiff's mortgage of the 8th of September 1893. In that miscellaneous proceeding, the Subordinate Judge raised this issue: Had the plaintiff the mortgage lien claimed by him? And, as the result of his investigation, the Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff's bond was invalid and unenforceable because it was not attested by two witnesses as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act. The plaintiff then brought a regular suit to get rid of ...
Emperor Vs. Padman Babul Mhatre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR585
1. The convictions and sentences in this application must be set aside.2. The facts found by the trial Magistrate are : The accused having suspected that the complainants were given to drinking liquor made an application to the caste calling for an enquiry into their conduct. As members of the caste they had every right to do it, so long as they acted in good faith, with due care and attention, and for the protection of the interests of the caste.3. The learned Magistrate has found that the conduct of the complainants warranted the suspicion entertained by the accused but he thinks that because the allegations in their application to the caste were libellous, therefore, it was not a privileged communication.4. But a privileged communication means a communication which is made by a member of a caste to the other members inviting an inquiry into the conduct of persons against whom the allegations are directed.5. In this case it is not pretended that the libel was communicated to anybody ...
The Government Pleader Vs. Bhagubhai Dayabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR700
Heaton, J.1. This is a case in which Mr. Bhagubhai Dayabhai, a pleader of the Surat Courts, is charged with misbehaviour and neglect of duty within the meaning of those terms as used in Section 56 of Bombay Regulation II of 1837.2. A good deal of argument in the case has been based on the supposed analogy of pleaders and barristers and the supposed resemblance between general retainers in the case of barristers and the retainer described in the second clause of Section 50 of that Regulation. It seems to me that the analogy is false and the resemblance is unreal. By the custom of the mofussil a pleader employed by a party to a proceeding before a Court is bound faithfully and exclusively to serve that party throughout the whole proceeding. This practice is based on, and we think, implied in, the words of Section 50, Clause 3 and Section 53, Clause 3, of the Regulation. The pleader in the mofussil is not merely an advocate--he is the confidential legal adviser of his client and does for ...
Haji Buksh Elahi Vs. Durlav Chandra Kar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1063
Shaw, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from judgments and decrees of the High Court at Calcutta, which set aside two decrees of the Subordinate Judge in the second Court of 24 Pergunnahs, in Bengal. The question for determination by the Board is whether a certain sale of holdings for arrears of revenue, made to the respondent on the 16th March 1903, should be set aside.2. On the 27th March 1902, the appellant purchased these holdings for Rs. 16,000 from a son of Bhagaban Chandra Banerji. By the Kabuliyat executed in the year 1874 by Bhagaban, who was thus the appellant's predecessor-in-title, it was stipulated as follows :-' I shall pay the said jumma in the Collectorate' within the 28th day of June every year.' The holdings were Government tenures in Dihi Panchana-gram in the District of Twenty-four Pergunnahs, and it is not disputed that such tenures came under the Act XI of 1859 by virtue of the provisions of Act VII of 1868. By Section 2 of the former Act an arrear of revenue wa...
Mirza Sajjad Ali Khan Vs. Nawab Wazir Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1055
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner for Oudh dated the 27th March 1907, modifying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Lucknow, dated the 30th March 1906. The suit was brought on the 1st April 1905.2. It prayed for a declaration that all the property comprised in three deeds of endowment was wakf, that is to say,' was endowed property, and the plaintiffs (the present appellants as trustees under these deeds prayed for possession. The claim in short was, as stated, a ' claim for possession of wakf) property by right of trusteeship.'3. The claim of the appellants was dismissed by the Subordi name Judge in its entirety. Upon appeal, the appellate Court upheld this decree with respect to the property comprised ii one of the three deeds of endowment, viz., that of 13th November 1902, and reversed it with respect to the property included in the other two deeds. That is to say the endowments under these deeds were held good.4. The ...
Hirabhai Narotamdas Vs. the Manufacturers Life Insurance Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR741
Narayan Chandavarkar, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The clause, which is to be construed in this case and on the strength of which the lower Court has dismissed the suit, is as follows : ' No suit shall be brought against the Company in connection with the said policy later than one year after the time when the cause of action accrues.' This clause is to be found in the declaration made by the applicant for an insurance policy which is Ext. n. That is the contract between the parties.2. It is argued for the appellant that the deceased who had insured his life could not contract himself out of his right to resort to a Court of justice and agree to lessen the period prescribed for a suit by the Legislature in the Limitation Act. In support of that argument the learned Counsel for the appellant has invoked the aid of Section 28 of the Indian Contract Act.3. If the words in the clause be interpreted literally there might be considerable force in the argument addressed to us. But the terms used in an ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›