Mumbai Court July 1913 Judgments
Kunwar Partab Singh Vs. Bhabuti Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR1001
John Edge, J.1. The suit in which this appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh has arisen was brought by Kunwar Partab Singh and Kunwar Ahbaran Singh in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Sitapur against Bhabuti Singh and others on the 22nd February 1908. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants here, sought by their suit to have it declared that a decree which was made on the 15th December 1899 in a suit for preemption which had been brought by Bhabuti Singh, who is respondent here, on the 26th June 1899, against certain vendees and others, and in which the appellants, who were then minors, had been added as defendants, was not binding as against them. The plaintiffs-appellants also sought in this suit to have a decree set aside which had been made on the 15th December 1899 in a suit for preemption which had been brought on the 27th July 1899 by them under the guardianship of one Hari Pershad against vendees and others and in which Bhabuti Singh had bee...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Hiragavri Vs. Gulabdas Jamnadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR1123
Batchelor J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was a suit for the winding-up of a partnership and for accounts. The plaint bore a Rs. 10 stamp, and the suit was valued at Rs. 130 for the purpose of Court fees, while for the purposes of jurisdiction the plaintiff stated its value at Rs. 10,000.2. The learned Judge of the Court of first instance, being apparently suspicious as to the value put upon the suit by the plaintiffs, called upon them under Order VII, Rule 2, to state approximately the amount sued for. No further or more definite sum than that already mentioned was however stated by the plaintiffs in response to this demand of the learned Judge, and the result was that the Judge rejected the plaint.3. The plaintiffs appealed to the District Judge, but he dismissed their appeal summarily, apparently finding it unnecessary to hear the other side. The learned Judge notices the argument advanced for the appellants, that is, that it was open to them, the appellants, to value ...
Tag this Judgment!Net Ram Singh Vs. Musammat Tursa Kunwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR863
Ameer Ali, J.1. The suit, which has given rise to this appeal, was brought by the plaintiffs in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh, to obtain a declaration that, as members of a joint undivided Hindu family, they became entitled by right of survivorship to the shares of their half-brother, Chhiddu Sing, in the properties mentioned in the schedule to plaint, upon his death in 1907. The plaintiffs and Chhiddu Sing are the sons by different mothers of one Narayan Sing, who died in 1879. They allege that after their father's death the family continued joint during the whole of Chhiddu's lifetime, and that in 1907, after Chhiddu's death, his widow, Tursa Kunwar, the defendant to the present action, obtained -,, from the Revenue Courts an order to have her name recorded in the Collector's Register as proprietor in place of his deceased husband. 2. The defendant, Tursa Kunwar, contested the claim on the ground that her husband was at the time of his death separate from his brothers...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Asha Bhathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR998
1. This is a reference by the learned Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad in connection with certain proceedings upon the record of the First Class Magistrate of Kaira, Mr. Dosabhai Dhunjibhai Billiraoria. Before that learned Magistrate, one Asha Bhathi and three others were charged with theft under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate drew up a charge against the three accused, but instead of trying them upon that charge himself, he has committed them for trial to the Court of Session on the ground that the cases are connected with another case in which he felt bound by law to commit. It appears, however, that the connection between these two cases is not of such a character as to embarrass or prejudice the accused if the course prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code is followed. We think that the reason, which the learned Magistrate gave for committing is not good in law or in fact, and that under Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code it was the Magistrate's duty to f...
Tag this Judgment!Sawantrawa Fakirappa Ballurwad Vs. Giriappa Fakirappa Mudraddi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom273; (1913)15BOMLR778
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was instituted by the plaintiff for redemption of certain property, which she alleged had been mortgaged by her husband to the defendants by a document, which though in form a sale was in reality a mortgage. In order to prove that she was a mortgagor it would be necessary for her to give evidence of the intention of the parties at the time of the transaction, namely in the year 1899, and to show 1 that that intention was not expressed in the deed. This she could not do under the provisions of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. But if she was enabled to avail herself of the provisions of Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act she could give the proof that she desired.2. The suit was brought in the Dharwar District, to which the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act were extended in the year 1905. Section 10A enables the Court to inquire into the real nature of the transaction in issue, provided that the agriculturist, ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Venkatesh Karguppi Vs. Sadashiv Mahadji Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom268; (1913)15BOMLR817
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal arising out of certain execution proceedings under the following circumstances :-Certain properties were mortgaged by Venkatesh and others to Vithalrao in 1886. They were mortgaged again to Rao Bahadur Huchrao in 1887 by the same mortgagors. In 1892 Vithalrao obtained a decree on an award on his mortgage against the mortgagors to which decree Huchrao was not a party, and subsequently in the same year he assigned his rights to the Kanbargikars, who are now represented by the present plaintiff (decree-holder). In 1896 the Kanbargikars obtained a fresh decree against the mortgagors for the mortgage-debt of 1886 and for other debts, which the mortgagors owed to them, in respect of the lands mortgaged in 1886 and some other lands. This also was a decree on an award and Huchrao was not a party to it. In 1895 R- B. Huchrao got a decree against the mortgagors on his second mortgage directing the sale of the mortgaged property subject to the first mortgage of 1886 i...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Moro Balvant Marathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR1039
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application in our revisionary Jurisdiction and is made by one Moro Balvant Marathe who is a pleader of the District Court of Belgaum. He has been convicted of assault otherwise than on grave provocation under Section 352 and of intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to a total fine of Rs. 16.2. It appears that the complainant, who is not a pleader, intruded into the Pleaders' Room at Belgaum in order to see the Hon'ble Mr. Belvi who is a pleader in that District. The applicant objected to the complainant's presence, and in his presence the rule was read out to the effect that the room was reserved for pleaders, and that if any parson not a pleader entered the room and his presence was objected to, it was incumbent upon such person to withdraw. The complainant, however paid no attention to the hint thus conveyed to himr and the applicant then formally notified to him his ob...
Tag this Judgment!The Dakore Town Municipality Vs. Anupram Haribhai Travadl
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom266; (1913)15BOMLR833
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff has obtained an injunction against the Dakore Municipality to restrain them from obstructing him in reinstating a stone which was formerly imbedded in his otla in its original position, and Rs. 2 for damages for wrongful removal of the stone. The learned Judge has based his decision upon a finding that this stone had been in situ for twelve years, and that, therefore, the Municipality had no right to interfere with it as there had been adverse possession for the statutory period of the portion of the street occupied by the stone. We do not think that this is a good reason for the decision. The Municipality is the creature of the Statute with duties inter alia to preserve the passage along public streets, and, under Sections 113 and 122 of the District Municipal Act, it is given certain powers depending upon the existence of certain conditions for the removal of encroachments or obstructions upon the streets. Under Section 113, if it i...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkishore Kedarnath Vs. Jainarayan Ramrachhpal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1913
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR867
Samuel Griffith, J.1. This was a suit instituted-to use the words of Article 126, of Schedule 2, to the Indian Limitation Act of 1877-' by a Hindu governed by the law of the Mitakshara, to set aside his father's alienation of ancestral property.' 2. The plaintiffs, the appellants, are the four sons of the defendant Kedarnath. The defendants are one Jainarayan, Kedarnath, and certain assignees from the former. The case made by the plaint, so far as material to the present appeal, is that the plaintiffs and their father were the owners of a joint undivided ancestral estate subject to the Mitakshara law, and that Kedarnath, in October 1898, improperly made a disposition of part of it by way of partition to the defendant Jainarayan. The relief formally claimed was that ' each of the defendants may be ordered to deliver them the possession of whatever property he has with him out of that mentioned in paragraph 11,' with consequential relief.3. The suit was instituted on 20th December 1907. ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahableshwar Krishnapa Vs. Ramchandra Mangesh Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1913
Reported in: AIR1914Bom300; (1913)15BOMLR882
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The Mukhtyarnamah (Ex. 68) was executed by Krishnappa in order to provide for the management of the estate (including the settlement of money debts and pecuniary claims) both during Krishnappa's life-time and after his death until the attainment of majority by the eldest minor in the family, i. e., the first plaintiff. The document 'was similar in design to the Hibbahnamah in Raj Lukhee Dabea v. Gokool Chunder (1869) 13 M.I.A. 209 but was dissimilar in that instead of prohibiting the guardian and manager from making gifts or sales it gave Manjappa after Krishnappa's death power to manage as he thought fit.2. In a family consisting in other respects of minors and women .' it is a matter of practical convenience that the dying adult male should be able to make arrangements for guardianship and management, otherwise a dead lock and loss would be arrived at through various widows quarrelling among themselves.3. The Privy Council in the case above-mentioned have rec...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »