Mumbai Court July 1913 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Haridas Lakhmidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR994
Batchelor J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of one Haridas Lakhmidas who was accused of having committed an offence punishable under Section 13 of the Coasting Vessels Act XIX of 1838, in that, being the owner of a harbour-craft, he plied the craft for hire without getting the certificate of registry required by Sections 4 and 7 of the Act.2. It appears that Haridas Lakhmidas, the accused, and his brother and father were members of a joint Hindu family, and the craft was registered in the name of the father Lakhmidas Kurji, who died in June 1912. Under Section 4 of the Act a second registration is required whenever any change takes place in the name of the owner of any harbour-craft. The learned Magistrate, however, who tried the accused, acquitted him on the ground that in this case the necessity for a second registration was avoided inasmuch as the business now conducted by the son, the accused, retained the name of the father Lakhmidas Kurji. M...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Gopal Joshi Vs. Chimnaji Vyankatesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR824
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The parties to this case are Brahmins. The question involved in this appeal is as to the validity of the adoption of the plaintiff. The fact of his adoption is admitted. The adoption was made by one Radhabai, the widow of Gopal, and before his adoption the plaintiff was Gopal's father's sister's son. The question is whether the plaintiffs adoption is in law invalid by reason of the rule that no one can be adopted whose mother the adopter could not have legally married.' It is conceded that there could have been no legal marriage between Gopal arid the plaintiff's mother in her maiden state. But the point seems to us the have been set at rest by the decisions of separate Benches of v this Court, that is to say, the two decisions in Ramchandra v. Gopal I.L.R. (1908) Bom. 619 : 10 Bom. L.R. 948 and Yamndva v. Laxuman : (1912)14BOMLR543 . The basis of these decisions is that the rule, that no one can be; adopted whose mother the adopter could not have legally marri...
Tag this Judgment!Mulraj Khatav Vs. the Collector of Poona
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR802
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal under the Land Acquisition Act and the first question which confronts the learned counsel is whether his appeal lies. It t appears to us that it does not lie. In the Court of the District Judge the contest was as to whether the Government should be allowed to take only that portion of the appellant's land which they desired to take, or should be forced to take the entirety of his holding in accordance with his wishes. The learned Judge decided this point against the appellant. From that decision this appeal is now sought to be brought.2. Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act the appeal admittedly is competent only if the decision of the District Judge amounts to an award. Having regard to Section 26 and other cognate sections of the Act, we are satisfied that this, which is a mere preliminary decision and decrees no compensation, cannot be regarded as an award. In our opinion, therefore, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Subrao Mangesh Chandavarkar Vs. Mahadevi Manji Bhatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom256; (1913)15BOMLR848
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings, and it arises upon these facts.2. The appellant on 1st November 1906 obtained a money-decree against one Bellabhatta. Prior to the decree, i. e., on 23rd October 1906, the appellant had obtained attachment before judgment of the property in suit, as being the property of Bellabhatta. Some time in 1907 Bellabhatta died. Admittedly he was in union with the respondent 2, and the property was joint family property, which on Bellabhatta's death would ordinarily have passed to respondent 2 by survivorship Nothing further was done under the decree till 1909 and 1911 when the appellant made applications for execution.3. The question is whether, in these circumstances, the respondent's title by survivorship was defeated by the appellant's attachment before judgment. Both the lower Courts have answered this question in the negative. In our opinion the is the correct answer.4. It would seem that there is no reported decision which precis...
Tag this Judgment!Vaithinatha Pillai Vs. the King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR910
Atkinson, J.1. During the lengthened hearing of this case their Lordships have had full opportunity of making themselves thoroughly familiar with the evidence and of giving all due consideration to the weighty arguments that have been addressed to them with great force and ability by the Counsel on both sides. They have availed themselves of that opportunity and they have had no difficulty, under these circumstances, in making up their minds as to the advice which they feel it will be their imperative duty humbly to tender to His Majesty. As the appellant now lies under sentence of death their Lordships think it would only be humane 'V and proper to announce at once what their advice will be. Their Lordships, while fully alive to the great undesirability of disturbing the judgment of the Criminal Courts in India, are clearly of an opinion that in the present case, owing in the main to the reception of wholly inadmissible evidence, the use made of that evidence when admitted to the grav...
Tag this Judgment!Achut Ramchandra Pai Vs. Nagappa Bab Balgya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom249; (1913)15BOMLR902
Batchelor, J.1. The appellants before us were the plaintiffs in the original suit, and the trial Court made a decree against them. On the last day allowed by the law of limitation they filed their appeal in the District Court. The memorandum of appeal was, however, insufficiently stamped, and the plaintiffs' pleader on being questioned as to this replied that he had no funds with which to pay the requisite stamp, and requested that the Court would give him time within which to make the necessary payment. The District Judge refused to grant the time applied for, and rejected the memorandum of appeal.2. The question before us is whether that was a right order. There can be no doubt, we think, that if the document presented had been a plaint and not a memorandum of appeal, the learned Judge's order of rejection would have been unsustainable. That appears to follow from the terms of Order VII, Rule 11(c) which provides for the case of the presentation of a plaint written upon paper insuffi...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Martu Vithoba Prabhu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR991
Batchelor, J 1. This is an appeal against a conviction of the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused under that section was sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge of Kanara.2. On the admission of this appeal, notice was directed to issue, and we have been assisted by the argument of the learned Government Pleader, but there has been no appearance on behalf of the accused. In these circumstances it is a matter of satisfaction that there exists no room for doubt as to the facts of the case. It is abundantly proved that the facts are as the learned Judge below has found them, that is to say, that the accused struck his wife on her neck with an axe and that the result of the blow in fact was an incised wound which amounted in law to simple hurt only within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code. The question is, whether, in the circumstances of the case, the learned Judge is right in applying Section 307 to ...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Venkata Narasimha Appa Row Vs. Sri Raja Parthasarathy Appa Ro ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR1010
Parker of Waddington, J.1. The principles to be applied in determining the question which now arises for decision do not, in their Lordships' opinion, admit of any controversy. These principles may be stated as follows:- First, in the absence of a sanad under Regulation xxv of the Madras Refutations of 1802, those regulations do not affect the title to 'any land: Collector of Trichinopoly v. Lekkatnani . Secondly, the acceptance of a sanad in common form under Regulation xxv does not of itself, and apart from other circumstances, avail to alter the succession to an hereditary estate : Kctchi Kaliyana Rengappa Kalakka Thola Udayctr v. Kachi Yava Rengappa Kalakka Thola Udayar . Thirdly,, unless there be an existing estate with other incidents which all sanad in common form under Regulation xxv can operate to conform, such sanad will confer on or confirm in the grantee an estate descendible according to the ordinary rules of inheritance of the Hindu law : Rajah Venkata Narasimha Appa Row ...
Tag this Judgment!Datto Atmaram Hasabnis Vs. Shankar Dattatraya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom263(1); (1913)15BOMLR841
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The application in this case is for a decree absolute for sale of a mortgage charge, the property of the defendant, under the terms of a consent-decree. The consent-decree provided for satisfaction of the decretal debt by installments. Three years from the due date of the last instalment becoming payable expired in July 1910. The application which we are now considering was made subsequent to that date. The question is whether it was barred by limitation? The lower Courts have held that the debt due to the plaintiff was moveable property, and that, therefore, there was no need for an application for a decree absolute. They based the decision upon Tarvadi Bholanath v. Bai Kashi I.L.R (1901) Bom. 316 : 4 Bom. L.R. 18. The question there turned upon whether the execution proceedings had been initiated under the right section of the Civil Procedure Code.2. That question does not arise in the present case. But although we cannot accept the reasons of the lower Court...
Tag this Judgment!Daya Khushal Vs. the Assistant Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom284; (1913)15BOMLR845
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from an award by the learned District Judge of Surat under the Land Acquisition Act. Two acres and thirty gunthas of land belonging to the appellants have been acquired by Government for the B. B. & C. I. Railway, and it is important to note that the land has been acquired for the purpose of quarrying.2. The short point involved in the appeal is, whether the special adaptability of the land for quarrying is a matter to be excluded from consideration or not. The learned Judge below was of opinion that it should be excluded because the appellants had never obtained from the Government permission to quarry, and under Section 65 of the Land Revenue Code the right of Government to mines and mineral products in land such as this is expressly, reserved.3. Now, to begin with, the appellants are entitled to claim that the compensation should be awarded to them on the footing that the ' value of the land is determined, not necessarily according to its present di...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »