Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1915)17BOMLR192
Heaton, J.1. A certain portion of land situated near the Santa Cruz Station was notified under the Land Acquisition Act to be acquired for the Railway. The owners of this land took advantage of the provisions of Clause (1) of Section 49 of the Land Acquisition Act and expressed their desire that the whole should be taken and not a part. The declaration issued under Section 6 had been of a part only. There is no dispute now that the owners acted rightly in this way and that they were entitled to have the whole and not the part acquired. We are only concerned with what followed. The Collector informed the owners and claimants that he accepted the claimants' statement as a declaration of the wish of the parties that the whole premises should be acquired. He said that he would act accordingly and would acquire the whole and that there was no necessity for Government to declare its intention of acquiring the whole. He then proceeded to make an award which was objected to by the claimants an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1915Bom57; (1915)17BOMLR187
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff alleged that one Shidhojirao was the full owner of all the lands in two villages, namely, Jigeri and Irapur of Ron Taluka, and one house at Gajendragad, that the two villages were Saranjam Inams, that the plaintiff's father died in 1899, that the plaintiff and his father were joint and the properties above-mentioned were managed and enjoyed jointly by them up to the death of the plaintiff's father, that afterwards up to about June 1900, the plaintiff alone managed and enjoyed the property, and about the month of June 1900, the father of the defendant, without having any right thereto, illegally took possession of all the land and was in enjoyment of it until five years ago when he died, and since then the defendant had been enjoying the property. The plaintiff further alleged that his father bequeathed the property in suit to him by will in the year 1890, but the plaintiff brought the suit not merely relying upon the right which accrued to him und...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1915Bom115; (1915)17BOMLR293
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiffs sue the five defendants as members of a joint Hindu family, trading for the purposes of these contracts in the name of Harising Chetram, for a sum of Rs. 6625-9-6, the differences due to the plaintiffs for sales of linseed. The contracts sued upon were entered into by the 4th defendant, Hakamchand, on account, as contended by the plaintiffs, of the other defendants in the month of September 1911 for the September settlement. Defendants 1 and 2, Chetram Harising and Beniram Harising, resist the plaintiffs' claim on the ground that the family was divided shortly before these contracts were made in September 1911 and that they, the said defendants 1 and 2, are the only partners in the firm of Harising Chetram. They deny that the defendant 4, Hakamchand had any authority to enter into contracts on their behalf or that they are bound by any contracts so entered into by the said Hakamchand. They further deny liability on the ground of their constituting a joint Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1915)ILR39Bom352
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff alleged Unit one Shidhojirao was the full owner of all the lands in two villages, namely, Jigeri and Irapur of Hon Taluka, and one house at (lajondragad, that the two villages were Saranjam Inams, that the plaintiff's father died in 1899, that I he plaintiff and Ids father were joint and the properties above-mentioned were managed and. enjoyed jointly by them up to the death of the plaintiff's father, that afterwards up to about Tune 1900, the plaintiff alone managed and enjoyed the property, and about the month of June 1900, the father of the defendant, without having any rigid thereto, illegally took possession of all the land and was in enjoyment of it until five years ago when he died, and since then the defendant had been enjoying the property. The plaintiff further alleged that his lather bequeathed the property in suit to him by will in the year 1890, but the plaintiff brought the suit not merely relying upon, the right which accrued to him...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1915)17BOMLR393
John Edge, J.1. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought on the 6th August 1910 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh by Kunwar Digambar Singh, who is the appellant here, against Kunwar Ahmad Said Khan, who is the respondent to this appeal, and one Bhawani Das, to enforce a right of pre-emption to which Kunwar Digambar Singh claimed to be entitled, under a custom which he alleged to be prevailing in Mouza Pala Kher in the District of Bulandshahr.2. The respondent here, Kunwar Ahmad Said Khan, who was the vendee of the property in dispute, by his written statement denied that there was any custom of pre-emption in Mouza Pala Kher and alleged that-Mouza Pala Kher was divided by perfect partition and entirely separate Mahals were formed...After the said partition no connection of any kind was left among the co-sharers of the different Mahals, nor did any joint right, based on the terms of any wajib-ul-arz, subsist among them.3. The date of the sale in respect of whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1915)17BOMLR413
John Edge, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees, dated the 13th February 1912, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, one of which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur of the 26th September 1910, and the other of which partly affirmed and partly reversed a decree of the same Subordinate Judge of the 26th September 1910. The suits in which the decrees were made were brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, one on the 20th May 1909 and the other on the 16th March 1910. They were suits for sale of immovable property. The suit of 1909 was based on a mortgage-deed of the 10th August 1886 the consideration for the mortgage having been Rs. 7,000. The suit of 1910 was based on a mortgage-deed of the 2nd July 1882, the consideration for that mortgage-deed having been Rs. 59,000, and upon a mortgage-deed of the 25th October 1892. There was in each suit a claim for a money decree. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suits on the groun...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1915)17BOMLR420
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated the 16th June 1909. That judgment was pronounced upon and reversed a judgment and decree of the Second Subordinate Judge of the 24-Pergunnahs dated the 31st August 1908.2. The object of the suit is for the redemption of two mortgages dated 22nd July 1848 and 4th April 1871. The defence which has been sustained is that the right to redeem was extinguished many years ago, in circumstances which will now be mentioned.3. Many of the facts of the case are comprised in a chapter which may be said to have definitely closed in the year 1873; and it is accordingly unnecessary to narrate them in detail. After the 1848 mortgage was granted by one Faslul Karim, his wife Khodajanessa obtained from him a conveyance of her husband's zemindary as a gift in lieu of dower. This occurred in 1850. In 1851 she began proceedings for redemption of the mortgaged properties. Many and various...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1915Bom92(1); (1915)17BOMLR63
Heaton, J.1. I think the Judge below is wrong in his decision so far as it has gone. We are dealing with some trollies which run on rails in the Broach streets, pushed or pulled by hand and used by contractors for the purpose of carrying material to fill up a tank. The question is, whether these trollies are vehicles subject to the wheel-tax of the Broach Municipality, the collection of which is in the hands of the plaintiff who is the farmer of that tax. The Judge below, as I understand him, held that these trollies do not come within the definition of 'vehicles' of the District Municipal Act. I think they do. It seems to me to be idle to say that these vehicles are not used or capable of being used on a public street when everybody connected with the case knows that in fact they are used on a public street. I see no good reason for supposing that they do not come within the plain words of the definition, nor do I think that they come within the exemption or exception which is provide...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1915)17BOMLR72
Heaton, J.1. After hearing what has been said in this case on both sides, we think that there is no ground whatever for prosecuting the present applicant. He consigned certain Mhowra flowers partly at the Nadiad and partly at the Umreth stations of the Railway Company for conveyance to Nandod. The Railway Company took possession of these goods and in the course of the conveyance to Nandod they were found at Ankleshvar, a place where they naturally would be in the course of this transport. But Ankleshvar is a place in a prescribed area within which even the possession of Mhowra flowers without a permit is unlawful. Assuming, which we do not for a moment admit, that the conveyance by railway from Nadiad and Umreth through Ankleshvar to Nandod did amount to a transport within or an import into or a possession of these Mhowra flowers within a prescribed area, yet the offence, if any, was committed, to put it compendiously, by the Railway Company. The accused personally did not possess the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1915)17BOMLR100
Dunedin, J.1. The same general point is raised in these two appeals.2. The first appellant was lessee under the Government as successors of the East India Company under a lease of date 18th April 1854, which lease contained a power of resumption in favour of the lessor if 'the Company, their successors or assigns, shall, for any public purpose be at any time desirous to resume possession of the premises granted'...upon certain terms as to notice and compensation.3. The second appellants are holders of land under Government in virtue of a Sanad originally granted to one George King on 6th April 1839, by the said East India Company, which declares the ground given in occupation is to be 'at any time resumable by Government for public purposes' upon certain terms as to notice and compensation.4. The Government gave notice in both cases to resume for a public purpose. On being challenged as to what that public purpose was, they explained that they wished for the ground in order to erect dw...
Tag this Judgment!