Mumbai Court August 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.
Emperor Vs. Dadabhai Framji Cama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR882; 17Ind.Cas.532
Scott, C.J.1. The finding of the Magistrate is that the accused is one of the joint owners of the land in question on which about a hundred bullocks are kept, some in huts and some in the open, the bullocks being plied for hire ; that the place is not licensed by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 394 of the Bombay Municipal Act. The accused was charged with using the place without having taken out a license. The defence was that the bullocks did not belong to the accused and that he did not keep them or use the place for keeping them; that the bullocks belonged to tenants who had hired different pieces of the ground and put up huts and were keeping the bullocks. The Magistrate finds that the accused knew ever since March 1910 that bullocks were kept on the land and allowed it, and actually contemplated building a bullock stable, and that such rent as was received for the land was taken by him.2. The matter comes up on revision before us upon conviction of the accused on these fa...
Umar Amnaji Miaji Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR934; 17Ind.Cas.659
Batchelor, J.1. In the suit out of which-this appeal arises, the plaintiff, who is a bhagdari resident of the bhagdari village of Kantharia in Broach, sued for a declaration that the defendant had no title or interest in a certain piece of land in the village site, on which land the plaintiff had fixed pegs for the tethering of his cattle. He sought also a permanent injunction restraining defendant from interfering with his tethering his cattle on the piece of land in suit which was situated just outside his house. The learned District Judge dismissed the suit, being of opinion, that the bhagdars were not, as the plaintiff contended that they were, owners of the village site ; that the land in suit was part of a public way used by certain inhabitants of the village, and consequently, under Section 37 of the Land Revenue Code, was the property of Government.2. In appealing from this decree, the plaintiff, through his pleader, has taken as his main ground the proposition that land in the...
Umar Amanji Miaji Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom87
Batchelor, J.1. In the suit out of which this appeal arises, the plaintiff, who is a bhagdari resident of the bhagdari village of Kantharia in Broach, sued for a declaration that the defendant had no title or interest in a certain piece of land in the village site, on which land the plaintiff had fixed pegs for the tethering of his cattle. He sought also a permanent injunction restraining defendant from in`terfering with his tethering his cattle on the piece of land in suit which was situated just outside his house. The learned District Judge dismissed the suit, being of opinion, that the bhagdars were not, as the plaintiff contended that they were, owners of the village site; that the land in suit was part of a public way used by certain inhabitants of the village, and consequently, under Section 37 of the Land Revenue Code, was the property of Government.2. In appealing from this decree, the plaintiff, through his pleader, has taken as his main ground the proposition that land in the...
Jethibai Vs. Putlibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1020; 17Ind.Cas.722
Beaman, J.1. In this suit, the plaintiff seeks to enforce an alleged equitable mortgage for a consideration of Rs. 6079 against a house in 2nd Bhoiwada Lane, the property of the deceased Parvatibai, against her executrix under the Will her grandmother Putlibai. The relationship of the parties commenced with Damodar Kanji, who left a widow Putlibai and a son Daya Damodar. Daya Damodar left him surviving a daughter Parvatibai. The plaintiff claims through one, Laxman, who left a widow Jaykore and a sister Jethi, the present plaintiff.2. The alleged equitable mortgage is said to have been made by Putlibai and Parvatibai in or about August 1906 to Laxman in consideration of a balance of Rs. 5079 at that time due as the result of long money transactions between himself and Damodar Kanji, and after Damodar Kanji, his son Daya Damodar ; and the further consideration of Rs. 1000 said to have been advanced by the said Laxman to Putlibai and Parvatibai to meet the expenses of a suit which had or...
Malkappa Dod Chanbasapagowda Vs. Mudkappa Basappa Mudigavdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR931; 17Ind.Cas.657
Chandavakar, J.1. The question which arises in this appeal is one of adverse possession under Article 144 of the Limitation Act. The facts shortly are : the lands in dispute belonged originally to the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 as members of a joint Hindu family. Defendant No. 1 held possession of them on behalf of himself and his co-parceners till 1880 when he sold the property to defendant No. 2. But defendant No. 1 continued in possession and passed a rent-note in favour of the 2nd defendant, his vendee. The question is whether this suit for partition which was brought in the year 1906 is barred by reason of the adverse possession of defendant No, 2 from the date of his sale.2. Now it is true the question of adverse possession between co-parceners inter so is governed by Article 127 of the Limitation Act. But Article 144 applies where the question is as between a co-parcener in a joint Hindu family and a stranger to it. If a co-parcener has alienated property belonging to the fa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›