Mumbai Court December 1913 Judgments
Chhogmal Balkissondas, a Firm Vs. Jainarayan Kanaiyalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1913
Reported in: (1915)ILR39Bom1
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from, a decree of Mr. Justice Macleod dismissing a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who carry on business as Shroffs, pakka adatias and commission agents in Bombay, to recover Rs. 48,045-15-0 as a balance of account payable by the defendant on transactions in which the plaintiffs acted as the defendant's pakka adatas. The balance appearing against the defendant is attributable to losses on forward contracts for the sale or purchase of silver, Bengal cotton, Broach cotton and linseed, All these losses occurred on contracts under which in fact no delivery was given or taken and all the contracts were entered into with the plaintiffs by Mangalchand, the Munim of the defendant's Cawnpore branch. The defendant disputes the authority of Mangalchand to enter into forward contracts on his behalf and upon this contention arises the first point in the appeal.2. Mangalchand was the sole Munim of the defendant at Cawnpore from 1897 to 1911, his remuneratio...
Tag this Judgment!Bhaiya Sher Bahadur Vs. Baiya Ganga Bakhsh Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR306
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated the 26th February 1906 of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which affirmed a judgment and decree dated the 3rd of January 1905 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gonda, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.2. The action out of which the appeal arises was instituted on the 3rd of April 1902 by the plaintiff as eldest son and heir of his fathe Jang Bahadur Singh, by a Mahomedan woman, claiming to recover the possession of the several villages mentioned in the Schedule annexed to the Statement of Claim, same forming part of an estate called the 'Balrampur estate' which had been bequeathed to the plaintiffs father by his, the plaintiff's, paternal grandfather, the Maharajah of Balrampur, by a icodicil dated the 15th of March 1878 to the last will of the Maharajah. Possession of these villages had been taken in the year 1899 by the first defendant, and since then retained by him. Mesne profits were claimed in r...
Tag this Judgment!Arun Chandra Singh Vs. Kamini Kumar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR323
Ameer Ali, J.1. The sole question involved in this appeal, which is from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Bengal, relates to the title to certain lands that had been washed away some years ago by the river Siddhi in the Noakhali district and have since reformed in consequence of a change in the course of the stream.2. The plaintiffs, appellants, are the owners of a Zamindari called Pergunnah Bhulua, situated in that district. Within this Zamindari lies a palni tenure called Talu Ram Saran Pal, created so long ago as 1837 by one of the predecessors in title of the present zemindars. The Taluk is now owned by the first and second defendant, respondents in this appeal. The remaining numerous defendants are ryots placed on the land, by the patnidars, since its reformation.3. The Dowl Kabuliat executed by the patnidar in respect of the tenure shows that it comprises parts of two kistnats or subdivisions of villages named respectively Kismat Paniartek and Kismat Algi; and the area ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Venkata Narashimha Appa Row Vs. Sri Raja Parthsarathy Appa Ro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR328
Moulton, J.1. The further question now for consideration in these consolidated appeals is the ownership of the Zamindari of Medur. It is common ground that at one time this Zamindari belonged to Narayya Appa Row, the son of Venkataramayya Appa Row, who will for convenience be referred to as Narayya the younger. It is also common ground that Narayya the younger died intestate on the 4th August 1895. The points in dispute are whether at the time of his death Narayya the younger had become by adoption the son of Raja Narayya Appa Rao Bahadur Garu, who died on the 7th December 1864 (and who will for convenience be referred to as Narayya the elder), and whether, if such adoption took place, it had the effect of divesting him of the Zamindari of Medur. In order that the respondents in this appeal may sustain their claim to a share of the Zamindari of Medur, it is necessary that they should succeed on both these points, inasmuch as their claim by inheritance from Narayya the younger depends o...
Tag this Judgment!T.S. Natcheappa Chetty Vs. the Irrawaddy Flotilia Company, Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR298
Shaw, J.1. The respondents in this case are the. Irra waddy Flotilla Company, and their vessels ply in the inland waters of Burma. The appellants, who were the original plaintiffs in the suit, are money lenders, and they carry on their business in Henzada, and in other places, in Lower Burma. :On the 13th, 20th, and 23rd October 1906, there having been eight other shipments in similar terms, there were the three shipments of paddy which are in dispute in this case. They, were sent by ship from Henzada to Rangoon.2. The document which accompanied their transmission is in each case similar in terms to the one which is now to be quoted. It is dated 12th October 1906, and it is headed as follows:-' Irrawaddy Flotilla Company, Limited.' It is denominated plainly in the document as a ' Mate's receipt.' The document then proceeds in these terms:-' Received from O. Rahman' (who in this judgment is called, for brevity, ' Chowdhry '), 'the under mentioned quantity of paddy to be forwarded per ca...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mir Husen Abdul Rahiman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom3; (1914)16BOMLR84
Shah, J.1. This is an application for the revision of an order by made under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Second Class Magistrate of Khalapur ordering the petitioner's recognizance bond to be forfeited and directing him to pay Rs. 25 as penalty. Admittedly the bond in question was taken by the Second Class Magistrate at Karjat for appearance before him and the default in appearance had taken place before that Magistrate. The notice to the petitioner to show cause was issued by the Magistrate at Karjat, and the subsequent proceedings with reference to the bond under Section 514 of the Code were before the Magistrate at Khalapur.2. The learned District Magistrate in appeal was of opinion that legally the forfeiting Magistrate was hot empowered under Section 514 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that irregularity was cured by Section 531 of the Code.3. I think that the Magistrate at Khalapur had no jurisdiction to make the order under Section 514, as he was not the ...
Tag this Judgment!Parbati Dasi Vs. Raja Baikuntha Nath De
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR101
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Bengal, dated the 27th of July 1906, which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, in the Province of Orissa, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.2. The parties are Hindus governed by the Dayabhaga law, and are descended from one Raghunath De. Raghunath had three sons, Rup Charan, Sonatan and Shyamanand, who admittedly formed a joint Hindu family. The plaintiff is the daughter of Rup Charan, and she brought this suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge for a declaration that certain properties included in Schedule (ka) attached to the plaint were the self-acquired properties of her father which devolved upon her after the death of her mother, Annapurna, and for the usual consequential relief in respect thereof. She also alleged that Rup Charan survived his father, and that she is entitled to the one-third share in Raghunath's estate which vested in Rup Charan on Raghunath's death.3. The defen...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Jagrani Koer Vs. Kuar Durga Parshad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR141
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, dated the nth January 1909. This partly affirmed and partly reversed a judgment anddecree dated the 4th February 1908 of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hardoi.2. The only question raised at the Bar of the Board was whether a will executed on the 21st October 1904 by one Kuar Narindra Bahadur is or is not a genuine will.3. Its provisions are substantially these: That after his death his widow should be proprietor of his estate in the Kheri District, and should have absolute power over the estate in the Hardoi District and hold proprietary possession over all his estate. By the third clause of the will it was provided that after her death ' Raj Bahadur, my sister's son, shall be the absolute owner of all ray property, movable and immovable, of every description.' Other provisions, including certain annuities to the testator's brother-in-law, occur in the will.4. Ex facie it w...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Anandrao Kulkarni Vs. Pandu Dagdu Teli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom30; (1914)16BOMLR75
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 2 against the decree passed by the Court of the Civil Judge at Vinchur in Suit No. 85 of 1912. A preliminary objection is raised by the plaintiffs that no appeal lies from the decree of the lower Court, and that if a special appeal lies it can lie only on the grounds mentioned in Clause 99 of Regulation IV of 1827. The appeal is registered as a first appeal.2. The lower Court in this case exercises its powers under Regulation xiii of 1830. It has been ascertained by this Court in the unreported case of Bhika v. Fakirchand F.A. No. 4 of 1904 (Unrep.) that the Jagirdar of Vinchur is enumerated in the list furnished by Government, and the fact has not been disputed before us. It is clear, therefore, that under the first clause of Section 3 of Regulation xiii of 1830 his decision is final, and that no first appeal in the ordinary sense lies to this Court. It is equally clear that under Section 5 of the same Regulation a special appeal is open i...
Tag this Judgment!Barhamdeo Prasad Vs. Tara Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1913
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR89
John Edge, J.1. This appeal has arisen in a suit which was brought by the plaintiffs on the 17th November 1900, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, to enforce payment of principal moneys and interest which were charged upon immovable property by a deed dated the 19th September 1887, by which one Kalu Babu mortgaged to the plaintiffs Mouzah Ghak and other properties. The mortgage money was repayable on the 18th November 1888. By the suit, so far as it concerned the defendants Barhamdeo Prasad and Ram Sumran Prasad, the plaintiffs sought a decree against them for Rs. 12,197-8-3, together with interest, on the ground that they were in possession of a sum of Rs. 12,197-8-3, which had been deposited in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, and was the balance remaining over of the purchase money of Mouzah Chak, after satisfying a decree for sale of that Mouzah of the 8th October 1890, such possession having been obtained by them wrongfully with full knowledge that it ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›