Mumbai Court July 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.
Shankar DIn Vs. Munshi Gokul Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1098
Ameer Ali, J.1. The sole question for determination in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs are entitled in this action to a decree for redemption in respect of certain property mortgaged so long ago as 1846 by their ancestor Ahlad Singh to one Daryao Singh, whom the defendants represent.2. The suit was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Biswan In the Province of Oudh in respect of two villages, Piprie and Gathia. This officer dismissed the claim in respect of Gather for failure on the part of the plaintiffs to serve sufficient notice on the Court of Wards, who held the village for one of the defendants. But he made a decree for redemption in respect Of Pipri, and his decision was affirmed on the appeal of the defendants by the Subordinate Judge. On second appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh this decree has been reversed and the suit dismissed with costs. The present proceedings refer only to Piprie.3. The plaintiffs have appealed to His Majesty in Council, and...
Shrimant Raje Bahadur Raghojirao Saheb Vs. Shrimant Raje Lakshmanrao S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1226
Lord Shaw 1. This appeal is made against a decree of the High Court of Justice at Bombay, dated the 14th November 1907, which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Court of Poona, dated the 7th December 1904. The plaintiff (respondent) and the defendant (appellant) are brothers, The main object of the suit is contained in the first prayer of the paint, and is to have it declared that the whole of the immoveable and moveable estate mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the plaint belongs to these two brothers as equal owners thereof. The elder brother, the defendant appellant, is Rajah of Dear. And the claim is registered by him upon the ground that the various properties referred to had been succeeded to by him, under the law of primogeniture, as an appanage to the title of Rajah conferred upon him by a Sanad issued under the hand of the Governor-General, Earl Canning, in the year 1861.2. The properties are situated in the Districts of Poona, Ahmednagar, Satara, and Sholapur, all in the ...
The Rangoon Botatoung Company, Limited Vs. the Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR833
Macnaghten, J.1. In this case a preliminary objection was taken to the appeal. Having heard the point fully argued, their Lordships came to the conclusion that the appeal was incompetent and they intimated that on that ground they would humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.2. The appeal purported to be an appeal as of right from an award of the Chief Court of Lower Burma. Some land belonging to the appellants had been taken for public purposes under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In due course the Collector made his award. The appellants did not accept it. They were dissatisfied with the amount of the Collector's valuation. On that ground and on that ground only they demanded, as they were entitled to do, that the matter should be referred to the Court under the provisions of the Act. The expression ' the Court ' in the Act is defined as meaning ' a principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction.' The reference was taken by two Jud...
Bando Krishna Kanbargi Vs. Narsinha Konher Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR861; 17Ind.Cas.210
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Belgaum, rejecting Darkhast No. 443 of 1908, presented by the appellant for execution of the decree in Suit No. 434 of 1897. The ground of rejection is that the darkhast is barred by time, inasmuch as the previous five darkhasts were not in accordance with law, having each claimed relief or reliefs which it was not competent for the Court to grant.2. The decree of which execution was sought by the darkhast in question had been passed originally on the 17th of November 1897; but it was amended on the 20th of January 1899. The amount payable under it was split up into four items. The first was a sum of Rs. 575 for costs made payable at once. The second consisted of two sums of Rs. 6,000 each ; the first sum was directed to be paid by the end of January 1908 ; in case of such non-payment, interest at 41/2 per cent was made to run on the sum from the 1st of November 1897 UP to the date of payment....
Bando Krishna Kunbargi Vs. Narasimha Konher Deshpande and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom42
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Belgaum, rejecting darkhast No. 443 of 1908, presented by the appellant for execution of the decree in suit No. 434 of 1897. The ground of rejection is that the darkhast is barred by time, inasmuch as the previous five darkhasts were not in accordance with law, having each claimed relief or reliefs which it was not competent for the Court to grant.2. The decree of which execution was sought by the darkhast in question had been passed originally on the 17th of November 1897; but it was amended on the 20th of January 1899. The amount payable under it was split up into four items. The first was a sum of Rs. 575 for costs made payable at once. The second consisted of two sums of Rs. 6,000 each; the first sum was directed to be paid by the end of January 1908; in case of non-payment, interest at 4 1/2 per cent, was made to run on the sum from the 1st of November 1897 up to the date of payment. As t...
Maganchand Fulchand Vs. Vithalrao Kamalrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR793; 17Ind.Cas.148
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff by virtue of a Mirasi lease and mortgage executed by the grand-father of the defendant No. 1 in 1877 came into possession of a certain land which has been held in the lower Courts to be Deshmukhi Vatan property and which, therefore, could not be alienated validly beyond the life of the alienor. After the death of the first defendant's grand-father, which occurred in 1892, the plaintiff remained in possession for 101/2 years, when the son of the alienor applied to the Assistant Collector for a decree for possession on the ground that the land was Deshmukhi Vatan property. He obtained an order from the Assistant Collector in February 1905 declaring the alienation null and void under Section 11 of the Hereditary Offices Act (Bombay Act III of 1874) and ordering the land to be restored to the applicant. There was an appeal to the Collector from that order but the Collector dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff has now been in possession of the land adve...
Bhurchand Hunsraj Doshi Vs. Vira Champa Khachar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR787; 17Ind.Cas.142
Chandavarkar, J.1. The District Judge has taken an erroneous view of the jurisdiction of the Collector or rather the Talukdari Settlement Officer, who exercised the powers of Collector under Section 320 of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882), and under Sections 69 and 70 of the present Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908), in respect of the execution of the decree concerned in this case. The Chapters in which these sections respectively occur deal with the functions of the Collector as the authority invested with jurisdiction to see that the decree is satisfied. The authority is given for the purpose of enabling the Collector to determine the best mode or modes of satisfying the decree, whether it is to be satisfied by management by the Collector himself of the land attached in execution of the decree, or whether it is to be by its sale or letting. So far, therefore, as the machinery necessary for the satisfaction of the decree is concerned, the Collector is the sole a...
Lala Fateh Chand Vs. Rani Kishen Kunwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1090
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a decree of the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces of India, dated the 7th November 1906, which reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh dated the 25th July 1904, which had set aside the decree of the Munsif of Etah, dated the 22nd September 1903, dismissing the suit with costs.2. The suit which related to the proprietary title to lands in Rampur was brought in the Court of the Munsif of Etah by Lala Fateh Chand, since deceased, and others against Rani Kishen Kunwar and others to obtain the cancellation 0f an Order of the 4th January 1902 of a Court of Revenue; for a declaration that the plaintiffs were the proprietors in possession of the lands in the plaint mentioned and as such were entitled to have their names entered in the revenue papers as proprietors; and for consequential reliefs. Some of the lands in question consisted of lands in the abadi of Mauza Rampur. Upon those lands in the aba...
Emperor Vs. Shankarbalvant Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR710
Narayan G. Chandavarkar, Kt., Acting C.J.1. At the outset what we observe is that the learned Sessions Judge would have probably acquitted the accused were it not for the opinion of the Assessors. He seems to be of the opinion that in a Sessions case the Assessors are the Judges of all questions of fact. That view of the law is erroneous. The Assessors are no doubt to assist the Judge but nowhere in the Code of Criminal Procedure has the Legislature invested the Assessors with the power of appreciating the evidence so as to bind the Judge. The theory of trial with the help of Assessors is that the system of Assessors forms as it were a stage towards the ultimate introduction of trial by a Jury. That was the object with which the Assessors' system was introduced in the earlier years of the introduction of Criminal law by the British Indian Legislature in this country. The opinion of the Assessors must have no doubt regard paid to it but after all it is the Judge who is to decide the cas...
Emperor Vs. Kisan Kevji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR713
1. The proceedings in this case were initiated under Section no of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate who initiated them ought to have disposed of them himself; but instead of doing so he sent up the case to the District Magistrate for action under Regulation XII of 1827. That he had no jurisdiction to do. The Code requires that he should pass the final order himself, either discharging or taking security from the accused.2. The District Magistrate to whom the case was sent up by the First Class Magistrate, assumed jurisdiction under Regulation XII of 1827 and has passed an order placing certain restrictions upon the personal liberty of the petitioners.3. Whether if the District Magistrate had passed such an order independently of the proceedings under Section no, it would have been legal is not the question before us now. But the proceeding having been initiated under Section no, the Magistrate before whom it was initiated ought to have himself disposed of it. The Distr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »