Mumbai Court September 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.
Nawab Behram Jung Vs. Haji Sultan Ali Shustry
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1912
Reported in: (1913)ILR37Bom572
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case it appears that a suit was filed on the Original Side of the Court by the present appellant who was known at the time to be a resident in Hyderabad without immoveable property in British India. The suit was contested and occupied eight days in the hearing. The defendant, however, made no application for security for costs before or at the hearing of the suit in the Original Court.2. Now that the appellant has filed an appeal and has deposited the prescribed amount according to the rules of this Court, viz., Rs. 500, as security for costs of the appeal, and within a fortnight of the date fixed for the hearing of the appeal the respondent gives notice to the appellant to show cause why he should not deposit in Court Rs. 7,500, as security for both the costs of the appeal and the costs in the lower Court.3. The contention on behalf of the respondent is that the case is governed by Order XLI, Rule 10, and that as the appellant is residing out of Britis...
Naginlal Chunilal Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1148; 12Ind.Cas.891
Batchelor, J.1. The appellant before us in this first appeal was the plaintiff in the Court below. The first defendant is the Official Assignee and the third defendant is a declared insolvent. According to the plaintiff he had purchased certain furniture from the third defendant, and had hired it back to him before the insolvency ; but when thereafter the third defendant was declared an insolvent, the Official Assignee seized the furniture in dispute, as well as other property which admittedly belonged to the insolvent and was in the insolvent's possession. The plaintiff made a claim in respect of this furniture, but the Official Assignee refused to recognize the claim, and on or shortly after the 15th September, for the exact date cannot be ascertained, the Official Assignee ordered this furniture to be sold by auction on the 25th September. On the 23rd September, or two days before the threatened sale, this suit was brought by the plaintiff.2. The whole question involved in the appea...
Ghelabhai Bhikhabhai Vs. Bai Javer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-20-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1142; 17Ind.Cas.866
Chandavarkar, J.1. The suit was brought by the plaintiff, who is the appellant, to recover possession of the property in dispute on the allegation that it belonged to him and his uncle Vithal as members of a joint Hindu family, and that on the ''death of Vithal he, i. e. the plaintiff, as the surviving coparcener, became exclusively entitled to it.2. The respondent Bai Javer against whom the suit was brought is the daughter of Vithal, and she contested the claim of the plaintiff upon the ground that the property was the separate property of her father, and that she was on his death heir according to Hindu law. The plaintiff challenged the defendant's right to the property as Vithal's heir upon several the principal of which tried in both the Courts be was the ground of res judicata.3. That question of res judicata arose under the circumstances : On the death of Vithal his widow, i.e., the present respondent's mother, brought a suit to recover possession of the property on the allegatio...
Jamsetji Nassarwanji Ginvalla Vs. Hirjibhai Navroji Anklesaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR192
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was filed by Hirjibhoy Naoroji Anklesaria as the administrator with the will annexed of Naoroji Nasserwanji Ginwalla against Jamshedji Nasserwanji Ginwalla, Ardeshir Nasserwanji Ginwalla, and Dinshaw Pestonji Ginwalla, the first two being the surviving partners of Naoroji Nasserwanji and the third being the administrator ad litem of the estate of Pestonji, another partner who survived Naoroji, but is now dead. Naoroji 'Nasserwanji died on the 7th of February 1885 being then a partner with his three brothers in the cotton-ginning and trading business in Gujarat which was carried on under the title of Nasserwanji Hirjibhai Cotton Ginning Company.2. The plaintiff prays that the first two defendants and the third defendant as administrator of the estate of Pestonji Nasserwanji Ginwala be directed to render an account of all the assets of the deceased Naoroji Nasserwanji Ginwala at the time of his death retained and employed by the first two defendants and...
Girdharlal Harivallabhdas Vs. Naranlal Narottamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1135; 17Ind.Cas.779
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree made by the District Judge of Ahmedabad who has dismissed the, plaintiffs' suit with costs. The suit purported to be a suit filed under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code with the permission of the Collector. The plaint, which is somewhat diffuse in its references to the history of the property, may be summarised as containing averments that the whole of the property referred to is public charitable property of the Vaishnavs ; that the defendants, of whom the second is the wife of the first, were mere pujaris, or as is expressly stated, trustees appointed by the Vaishnavs for the worship of the idol ; that the defendant, that is to say, the real defendant, the husband, although a trustee, did not properly look after and take care of the Mandir; that he refused to show the income of the Mandir to the Vaishnavs interested. Misconducting himself in this and other ways, say the plaintiffs, he datwrrot- discharge his duties as a pujari and...
Rangacharya Appacharya Vs. Dasacharya Sankalpacharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR178; 19Ind.Cas.387
Batchelor, J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain a declaration of his title to the village of Gangapur as Swami of a certain Math known as the Uttaradhi Math. The learned Subordinate Judge of the First Class was in the plaintiff's favour upon most of the issues, but upon the issue of limitation was against the plaintiff. He, therefore, dismissed the suit with costs.2. The only question with which we are concerned in appeal is the question of limitation, though it will be convenient to consider that question under different heads. We may observe that the argument, which has been somewhat more elaborate than usual, has covered a great many points of interest, but we propose to confine our judgment to those points relevant to our decision.3. The defendants in the suit are the successors-in-title of one Mudu Ramacharya to whom in 1830 or 1831 the village in suit was given by his brother, the then Swami Satya Sankalpa. The evidence shows that in A. D. 1678-79 the village was given in Inam to a ...
Emperor Vs. Naga Tima
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR956; 17Ind.Cas.789
1. In our opinion Act XIII of 1859 (Workmen's Breach of Contract Act) is a Statute which calls for strict interpretation, and the agreement which has been closely analysed by the learned Sessions Judge appears to us to fall outside that Statute. The reasons for that view have been given by the Sessions Judge, and we need not recapitulate them. It will be enough for us to say that the respondent before us was not an employer or master within the meaning of the Statute, but was, in our opinion, a mere broker or middle man for the purpose of supplying labour to the .employer or master and the terms of the agreement seem to us, in many respects, to lie wholly outside the scope of the Act.2. We must therefore set aside the order passed by the First Class Magistrate....
Hira NaikIn Vs. Radha Naikin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR1129; 17Ind.Cas.834
Batchelor, J.1. In this litigation the parties concerned are professional prostitutes of the class known as Naikins, and their relation is shown by the genealogy recorded in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The plaintiff Radha sued to obtain by partition her half share in the properties belonging to the women Tana and Sundra. There is no dispute as to the plaintiff's right to a half share in Tana's property. The question is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a half share in Sundra's property. The second defendant Hira resists such a claim alleging that she herself was validly adopted as a daughter of Sundra, and is thus entitled to inherit Sundra's property; and in the alternative she relies upon the will of Sundra made in her favour.2. The trial Court found substantially in the second defendant's favour. But that decree was materially modified on appeal by the learned First Class Subordinate Judge, and from his decree the present appeal is brought by the second defendant.3...
Emperor Vs. Tatia Mahadev
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR961; 17Ind.Cas.794
Batchelor, J.1. In this case we called for the record of our own motion and we have issued notice on the accused Tatia Mahadeo to show cause why the sentence which had been passed upon him by the Fourth Presidency Magistrate should not be enhanced. He has been convicted of common assault under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 60, or in default one month's rigorous imprisonment.2. The finding of fact upon which that conviction and sentence proceeded is this :-' 1 find', says the Magistrate, ' that the complainant with her daughter Chandribai lives on the first floor (sic) accused lived on the second floor of the same house. The girl Chandribai was taken in his room by the accused and made to lie down and he lay on her. The girl screamed and coming down reported the matter to the complainant.' The facts thus found seem to us to amount to the offence defined in Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, an assault or use of criminal force to a...
Mahomad Mehdi Faya Tharia Topan Vs. Sakinabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR908; 17Ind.Cas.629
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff was married to the defendant in 1894. In 1896 the defendant left him. On the nth of July the plaintiff sent her a notice demanding restitution of conjugal rights. This demand was refused by the defendant on 19th of July. The plaintiff took no action for more than two years after this refusal. Consequently under the provisions of Section 4 and Article 35 of the Limitation Act of 1877 any suit for restitution was liable to dismissal. The particular form of remedy was barred even though the plaintiff's right to the services of his wife remained. This is the effect of the decision of the Full Bench in Dhanjibhoy Bomanji v. Hirabai ILR (1901) 25 Bom. 644. On the 1st of January 1909,' however, the Limitation Act of 1877 was repealed and superseded by the Limitation Act of 1908. In that Act Article 35 of the Act of 1877 has not been reproduced. It contains no Article prescribing a special period for suits for restitution.2. On the 16th of June 1911, the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›