Mumbai Court November 1913 Judgments
Kali Bakhsh Singh Vs. Ram Gopal Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR147
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of date the 21st May 1908, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Rae Bareli, dated the 15th February 1907.2. The plaintiffs ask that a decree for actual and proprietary possession of certain shares in villages in Pargana Salon be passed in their favour against the defendants, and for an account of mesne profits.3. It is unnecessary to enter upon many details of the case. The portion of it which was laid before the Board consists in a demand for cancellation of a Deed of Gift dated the 24th September 1903, executed by one Balraj Kuar in favour of Ganga Bakhsh Singh, son of the appellant, Kali Bakhsh Singh,4. This deed has been upheld by the Subordinate Judge, and has been declared invalid by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner.5. It is important to observe what were the grounds for the cancellation of this deed. They are gathered together in the issues...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gendlal Chimanbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR80
Heaton, J.1. In this case the applicant has been committed to the Court of Session by the District Magistrate of Nasik acting under the powers conferred upon him by Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant had previously been discharged by a Magistrate.2. On the merits of these orders I shall not say a word, I mean on the merits in so far as they are affected by the evidence in the case and considerations arising purely out of the evidence. It is, however, contended that the District Magistrate was without authority to make this order, because the case against the applicant is primarily one of criminal misappropriation or breach of trust, and such a case is not triable exclusively by the Court of Session. However, the accusation against him is that this criminal misappropriation was enabled to be done of was concealed or facilitated by making false entries in accounts. That is, the falsification of accounts was not only a substantial part of the affair, but so subst...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Thakur Barmha Vs. Jiban Ram Marwari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR156
Moulton, J.1. This is an appeal against a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated 26th June 1906, affirming an Order of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Godda in the Sonthal Pergunnahs, dated 20th December 1904, granting a certain sale-certificate to the second set of respondents hereto, described as auction-purchasers. The facts of the case so far as is necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:-2. On the 23rd October 1903 the respondents Jiban Ram Marwari and Ishwar Das Marwari (described as the decree-holders), obtained judgment against the original appellant Rajah Thakur Barmha (now represented by his heirs and legal representatives), for a sum of 42,562 rupees and interest, and on the 31st October 1903 the decree-holders applied for execution of the decree by attaching and selling the property mentioned in the application. It is only material to refer to the first item in the Schedule specifying that property which r...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmedbhoy Habibbhoy Vs. Waman Dhondu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom82; (1914)16BOMLR72
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case an award was made under the Land Acquisition Act which did not exceed Rs. 5000. The reference to the Court was in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Civil Courts Act to the Assistant Judge, and he tried the reference. Under the same Act an appeal lay to the District Judge as the amount or value of the subject-matter did not exceed Rs. 5,000, and he heard the appeal. That was analogous to an appeal from an original decree.2. An appeal is now preferred from the decision of the District Judge to the High Court, and the question is whether such appeal lies, An appeal lies only if it is expressly given by the Act. It does not lie merely by analogy to appeals in civil suits : see Rangoon Botatoung Co. v. The Collector, Rangoon (1912) L.R. 39 IndAp 197 : 14 Bom L.R. 833.3. Now an appeal lies to the High Court in proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act under the conditions specified in Section 54 of that Act. That section says:' Subject to the...
Tag this Judgment!George Staunton Clifford Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR1
Haldane L.C., J.1. Their Lordships do not propose in this case to recommend that leave to appeal be given. Their functions are not to sit as a Court of criminal appeal, and it would be contrary to their constitutional duty to assume that position. A Court of criminal appeal can go into questions of evidence and into questions of procedure, and can deal with the case on the same footing as an ordinary Court of appeal. Their Lordships' functions on the other hand are limited by the principle laid down in Billet's case (1887) 12 App. Cas. 459 to something much more narrow, namely, this : that if they find that what has been done has been grossly contrary to the forms of justice, or violates fundamental principles, then they have power to interfere. But in the present case they think there was evidence to go to the Jury on all the matters which have been dealt with, and it would be contrary to their duty to express any opinion as to whether in that state of things the verdict found by the ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajkumari Bhubaneshwari Kumar Vs. the Collector of Gaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR95
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of date the 25th May 1909, which was pronounced by the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, and which affirmed a judgment and order of date the 23rd September 1908, and the 2nd of March 1909, of the District Judge of Gaya.2. The present proceedings were instituted on the 16th of July 1908 by an application which was made by the Collector to the District Court under Section 19H, Clause 4, of Act XI of 1899. Before reading that section it may be stated that the general nature of the application was to declare that no inventory of the estate of the deceased as required by law had been filed, and that the appellant was not willing to amend the valuation of the estate to the satisfaction of the Collector.3. In the defence lodged to those proceedings, this declinature and inability were reaffirmed by the appellant, and accordingly the proceedings have taken their course.4. The section of the Act of 1899 to which particular...
Tag this Judgment!Kalyanchand Lalchand Vs. Sitabai Dhanasa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom8; (1914)16BOMLR5
Beaman, J.1. Dhanasa died in September 1905. He is alleged to have made a will within forty-eight hours of his death. The executors petitioned for probate in 1908. The widow Sitabai, plaintiff in this suit, opposed, alleging in general terms that there was no will. To understand the vagueness of her caveat it is necessary to state that at the time of her husband's death she was a minor. The executors averred that the will was executed in her presence. She therefore replies in her caveat that no such will was ever executed in her presence, and that what is now propounded as the genuine last will and testament of the deceased Dhanasa, does not seem to be a genuine will. In the circumstances I do not see how she could have been expected to be more explicit, and I think that her contention fairly raised all points upon which the genuineness of a will can be disputed.2. The learned District Judge refused probate, clearly on the ground that the deceased Dhanasa could not have been in a sound...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Durga Prasad Singh Vs. Rajendra NaraIn Bagchi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR42
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by Raja Durga Prasad Singh, the plaintiff, from a decree, dated the 26th August 1909 of the High Court at Calcutta, which varied a decree, dated the 27th April 1907, of the Subordinate Judge of Manbhum, in a suit for arrears of rent, cesses, and interest, which was brought on the 15th August 1906, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Manbhum, upon a mokurari kabuliyat of the 3rd December, 1894.2. The kabuliyat was executed by Rajendra Narayan Bagchi, now dead, who, with others who derived title through him, was a defendant to the suit. The pottah, corresponding to the kabuliyat, was executed by Raja Jaimangal Singh, now dead the original lessor, whose interest vested before suit in the plaintiff. In the kabuliyat, Rajendra Narayan Bagchi acknowledged having received from Raja Jaimangal Singh a pottah corresponding to the kabuliyat, and stated that 'On the agreement that the heirs and representatives of both of us, yourself and myself, shall be boun...
Tag this Judgment!Kaluram Pirchand Marwadi Vs. Gangaram Sakharamshet Shimpi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR67
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff brought the present suit for an account and for recovery of the balance due by the defendant, who was the owner of ginning and pressing factory and with whom the plaintiff had dealings as a customer. Several issues relating to the agreement between the parties, custom of the trade, interest and other details were raised by the trial Court. After recording findings on these issues the Court ordered accounts to be settled as per findings on the 30th June 1910. It was also ordered on the same day that the plaintiff ought to apply for commission within four days from that date or put in his own statement of accounts so that defendant may check it and ascertain its correctness. Ultimately a commissioner was appointed to take accounts. He took accounts and found that a certain sum was due by the plaintiff to the defendant. The Court accepted the commissioner's report and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs on the 26th September 1910.2. The plaintiff appealed to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›