Mumbai Court March 1913 Judgments
Gopal Parshottam Vs. Morar Punja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR555; 20Ind.Cas.249
Batchelor, J.1. This appeal is brought by the defendants and the original suit was a suit to redeem. The lower Court has granted a decree for redemption. That is now resisted by the appellants on the ground that the lower Court was wrong in not looking at a certain Exhibit, viz., Ex. 23, which, it is contended, if it had been looked at, would have satisfied the Court that no power to redeem was left in the mortgagor. The learned Judge below has declined to look at Ex. 23, first, because it is an unstamped and unregistered agreement, and, secondly, because it is an agreement without consideration. On both these points we are of opinion that the learned Judge was right.2. Mr. Gokuldas has taxed his ingenuity to supply some kind of consideration for Ex. 23, but, we think, without success. As regards the bar of the Registration Act, the learned pleader has endeavoured to evade that by referring to Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act which gives the Court power to go behin...
Tag this Judgment!Nusserwanji Pestonji Wadia Vs. Eleonora Wadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom211(2); (1913)15BOMLR593; 20Ind.Cas.492
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The first question that arises is whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit which is for restitution of conjugal rights.2. The petitioner is an English woman professing the Christian religion.3. The respondent is a Parsi whose parents reside in Bombay.4. The parties were married in London on the 4th of August 1911.5. On the nth of October in that year they started for India and arrived in Bombay about the end of that month.6. On the 3rd of February 1912, they left Bombay again for London travelling via Marseilles. They arrived at Victoria Station in London, on the 19th of February 1912, where the respondent left the petitioner. He has since refused to live with her though offering her a certain maintenance. It is alleged on affidavit that subsequent to February 1911 he has obtained employment as a commercial traveller on 200 per annum in England.7. On the 8th of March 1912, the petitioner announced her intention of going to India to bring her ca...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chandkha Salabatkha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR564; 20Ind.Cas.611
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the order made by the Sessions Judge o Khandesh reversing the conviction recorded against the two respondents under Sections 457 and 511, Indian Penal Code. In other words, the respondents had been convicted of the offence ' of attempting to commit house-breaking by night, and their 90nyiction of that offence was reversed by the Sessions Judge. It was so reversed by reason of the Sessions Judge's view upon a point of law, and for the purpose of expressing his view on that law the learned Judge quite rightly assumed the state of facts found proved by the Magistrate. The question is, whether upon the state of facts the Judge is right in thinking that these respondents could not be convicted of the offence of attempting to commit house-breaking. The state of facts assumed is that during the night these two respondents dug a hole in the wall of the complainant's dwelling house with intent to complete that hole in order t...
Tag this Judgment!Burjorji Ruttonji Bomanji Vs. Bhagvandas Parashram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom319; (1913)15BOMLR716; 20Ind.Cas.834
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiffs, a firm of Marwari merchants, who act inter alia as pakka adatias to recover from the defendant Rs. 90,763-14-6 and interest as the amount due by the defendants to the plaintiffs as his pakka adatias in respect of certain contracts in cotton and linseed.2. The defence was that the transactions were wagering transactions and therefore the sum claimed could not be recovered, the defendant also counter-claimed repayment of two sums of Rs. 50,600 and Rs. 10,400 deposited by him as he alleged at fixed deposit but as the plaintiffs alleged as margin-money or security in respect of the contracts above-mentioned.3. The only contract in cotton was dated the 30th June 1910. It was for the purchase by the defendant from the plaintiffs of 2000 bales of Broach Cotton for March 1911. The market went in the defendant's favour and the contract was closed for Rs. 5804-2-3 without any delivery taking place. The defendant has received credi...
Tag this Judgment!Jankibai Vs. Shrinivas Ganesh Valsankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom193; (1913)15BOMLR684; 20Ind.Cas.533
Dinshaw D. Davar, Kt., J.1. The plaintiff Jankibai is the widow of Vithal Valsankar, who died in 1907. He left him surviving his widow, the plaintiff herein, and his five brothers who are all defendants in this suit. The six brothers were members of a joint and undivided Hindu family and it is admitted that they were owners of joint ancestral properties, consisting of houses and lands, which are in Akalkote in the Sholapur District. These properties are now in the possession of the defendants.2. The plaintiff has filed this suit to recover from the defendants her stridhan ornaments which, she says, she left with her husband's brothers when she left their house, and she claims maintenance and arrears of maintenance out of the joint ancestral property now in the possession of the defendants. These claims are resisted on various grounds which for the present purposes are unnecessary to set out.3. The defendants contend that this suit as framed is bad for misjoinder of causes of action.4. ...
Tag this Judgment!Andrew Yule and Co. Vs. Ardeshir Bomanji Dubash
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom312(2); (1913)15BOMLR724; 20Ind.Cas.844
Beaman, J.1. Assuming the agreement of the 22nd November 1911, to charter the S 6 Gymeric to the plaintiffs for twelve consecutive voyages, to be in all respects good, there is still a question to be answered in limine, whether a charter-party of such a character will support the injunction prayed for.2. If not then it follows that the suit would immediately be restricted to an ordinary suit for damages against the defendant No. 3, Ghulam Hussaiu Issaji. Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act is no doubt intended to give legislative effect to a group of English cases, of which, in the domain of personal service Lumley v. Wagner (1852) 1 De G.M.& G. 604 is the best known, and in the domain of shipping law De Mattos v. Gibson (1858) 4 De G. & J. 276 and Collins v. Lamport (1864) 34 L.J. Ch. 196 are good examples.3. I have gone over all the authorities, to which my attention has been drawn, very carefully, and I doubt whether anyone of-them has gone the length I am now asked to go. It is i...
Tag this Judgment!S. Amarchand and Co. and Chhaganlal Pitambar Vs. Ramdas V. Durbar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR890
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In both these appeals the appellant is an endorsee of a railway-receipt from the firm of Chhaganlal Kalidas who purchased the cotton bales mentioned in the receipts from (Ramdas Vithaldas of Bagalkote.2. Chhaganlal Kalidas having become insolvent Ramdas Vithaldas, as unpaid vendor, stopped the cotton in the hands of the Bombay Steam Navigation Company before it had been delivered to the respective endorsees. In each case the Steamship Company has interpleaded. The first question in which case is whether the endorsee made the advance which he seeks to recover specifically upon the railway-receipt or receipts.3. In Appeal No. 7 the fact of such advance is not disputed but in Appeal No. 4 it is contended that the advance of Rs. 15,000 was not made specifically against the two railway-receipts for 135 bales because the advance is entered in the general account of Chiaganlal and the proceeds in ordinary course would have been held as security not only for the advanc...
Tag this Judgment!Joopoody Sarayya Vs. Pulavarti Lakshmanaswamy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR634
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated the 10th December 1908, which reversed a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Rajahmundry, dated the 16th September 1905. The suit as brought included a claim for partition of certain family property. That part of the suit has been settled. What remains constitutes the subject of the present appeal. The assertion is that the plaintiff's family has a half share, along with the defendant (the present respondent), in a partnership business carried on in Akuvidu. The High Court has held that this claim is barred by limitation and has dismissed the suit.2. It is unnecessary to refer to various other pleas in the case, including those founded on an alleged misjoinder of causes of action, because, in the opinion of their Lordships, the conclusion reached by the High Court on the plea of limitation was clearly correct.3. In or about the year 1868 a partnership business was started in Kottapally. At a...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Basant Singh Vs. Mahabir Pershad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR525
Atkinson, J.1. These are three consolidated appeals from three decrees of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, the first dated the 19th of March 1909 and the other two the 29th of March 1911.2. By the first of these, certain decrees of the Subordinate judge of Partabgarh, dated the 22nd of July 1908, were in part affirmed and in part reversed, and by the two latter a judgment and decree of the District Judge of Rae Bareli, dated the 5th of February 1910, was also in part affirmed and in part reversed.3. By this decree of the 5 the of February 1910 a previous decree of the same Subordinate Judge, dated the 3rd of August 1909, was in part affirmed and in part reversed.4. The facts out of which all this litigation has arisen are shortly as follows :- A certain estate in five villages in the Partabgarh district was owned by two joint Hindu families, the respective heads of which were two brothers Binda Sewak and Ram Pershad, the share of the said Binda Sewak's branch being 7 ann...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotalal Hirachand Vs. Manilal Gagalbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR551; 20Ind.Cas.246
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question is whether the possession of a pankh or eaves for the discharge of water over-hanging the defendant's land is an easement or an occupation of defendant's property.2. Both Courts have held that the right is an easement but that the interference by the defendant turning back the eaves was trifling and could be compensated by payment of Rs. 3.3. The appellant contends that an injunction against interference should have been allowed.4. Various cases were cited for appellant.5. In the oldest Bombay case dated 1878, Mohanlal v. Amratlal (1878) I.L.R. 3 Bom. 174, 176, the Court treated the right sought to be enforced by injunction from two points of view, trespass ripening into adverse possession and easement, inclining to the view that it was a case of adverse possession.6. In Vitoba bin Raghunath v. D. Anna Rozario (1888) P.J. 212, the Court inclined to the other view, citing Gale on Easements. The passage referred to seems to have been the following qu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »