Mumbai Court December 1914 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lingangowda Govindgowda Vs. Tulsawa Marigowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Bom48(2); (1915)17BOMLR315
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In this case we are of opinion that the judgment of the District Judge must be affirmed. If we were to accede to the argument urged on behalf of the appellant, the extraordinary result would follow, as has been pointed out by the learned District Judge, that since a sister has precedence over a step-mother, if a step-grandmother had precedence over the sister, she would have precedence over the stepmother, though she herself is more remote. No authority has been cited in support of the argument which has been advanced before us. References have been made only to certain dicta in a judgment of Mr. Justice Ranade in Vithalrao v. Ramrao (1899) 2 Bom. L.R. 139; I.L.R. 24 Bom. 317 in which an entirely different point arose, and it is by no means clear that those dicta would lead to the conclusion that the grandmother who has a special position assigned to her in the Mitakshara includes what is called a step-grandmother. We affirm the order of the lower appellate Cou...
Emperor Vs. Anandrao Balkrishna Rangnekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1914
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR82
Davar, J.1. Rao Saheb Anant Bhasker Nimkar, the Mamlatdar of Vengurla, filed a complaint against Anandrao Balkrishna Rangnekar, in the Court of the First Class Magistrate of Malwan, Mr. Bijurkar, charging the said Rangnekar with having defamed him and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate convicted the accused and sentenced him to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine Rs. 200, and directed that out of the fine, Rs. 75 should be paid as compensation to the complainant under Section 545 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On appeal, the Sessions Judge remitted the sentence of imprisonment, but confirmed the conviction and sentence of fine. Against this, the accused has applied to us for revision, and the record and proceedings having been sent for, the case has been fully argued before us.2. The questions that arise for consideration are, whether the accused is guilty of the offence of defamation, and whether, if what he wro...
Javerbhai Jorabhai Vs. Gordhan Narsi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Bom102; (1915)17BOMLR259
Batchelor, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, brought this suit as mortgagee to recover possession of a house and Rs. 14 as rent or, in the alternative, to recover Rs. 749 from the mortgaged house and other properties of defendants in case the Court should hold that plaintiff's mortgage was void. The plaint set out that the house in suit and certain other properties were, by a registered deed of 1897, mortgaged to the plaintiff's father by defendants 1 and 2 and Shankar Narsi, the deceased husband of defendant 3, these mortgagors having purchased the properties from the bhagdar owner in 1893; that in 1901, on accounts being taken, part of the property was sold to pay part of the mortgage debt, while the balance of the debt was secured by a fresh mortgage of the house in suit; that the defendants 1 and 2 and Shankar Narsi or, after his death, his widow, the third defendant, remained in possession of the house as plaintiff's tenants under yearly rent-notes; that the last...
Tribhovandas Narotamdas Vs. Abdulally Hakimji Paghdivalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Bom298; (1915)17BOMLR209
Beaman, J.1. The facts material to the decision of the preliminary point are admitted to be these, that the suit was brought against the first defendant and while the suit was pending and after an ex parte decree had been made against him, he became an insolvent. About a month after his insolvency, he applied to have the ex parte decree set aside and the matter was argued before Davar J. without any mention being made of the defendant No. 1 having been adjudicated an insolvent. Davar J. set aside the ex parte decree, and about a month later, it appears to have come to the plaintiff's knowledge that the defendant No. 1 was an insolvent. Correspondence with the Official Assignee followed. Leave seems to have been obtained to bring the Official Assignee on the record under Order XXII, Rule 10. That has been done. The Official Assignee subsequently refused to defend the suit. Defendant No. 1, however, has elected to defend independently of the Official Assignee and appears here by two coun...
Gangabai Vs. Sonabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Bom109; (1915)17BOMLR303
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks specific performance of an agreement to sell a certain property in Sheikh Memon Street, alleged to have been entered into on the 18th of January 1914, between the said plaintiff and the defendant, Sonabai, administratrix of the estate of her deceased father. The plaintiff also asks for the rectification of the agreement, if necessary, by the insertion of words not therein to be found at present, making it clear that the contract was entered into by Sonabai as administratrix. Before the case was opened, the learned counsel for the plaintiff asked leave to raise an additional issue which implies, as I understand it, the abandonment of this supplementary prayer for rectification. No evidence has been led in the course of this trial to prove any mutual mistake in the actual wording of the agreement, Ex. E; but in its final form the plaintiff's case amounts to this, that inasmuch as Sonabai was the administratrix and purported to convey the whol...
In Re: Kareppa Chanbasappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Bom295; (1915)17BOMLR79
Heaton, J.1. In this case a certain Kareppa was suspected as possibly having been concerned in a theft from the house of a certain Mokashi who gave information to the Police as a consequence of which a considerable quantity of jewelry and money was found in Kareppa's house and was taken possession of by the Police. Inquiry showed that there was no definite evidence on which a charge that Kareppa had been concerned in the theft could be based, nor was any of the property found in Kareppa's house claimed by Mokashi to be his. It became necessary, then, to make an order for the dispossal of the property. Acting under Section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Magistrate came to the conclusion that the person entitled to the property was unknown. He issued a proclamation and when the six months required by the section had elapsed, no person had come forward to claim any of the properties. The Magistrate then determined that the property ought not to be returned to Kareppa unless he was...
Emperor Vs. Appa Ragho Bhogle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1914
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR69
Heaton, J.1. In this case the applicants gave information to the Police about certain alleged circumstances in relation to a woman who had just died, and this amounted to information of the commission of a non-cognizable offence. It was made to the Police who obtained the authority of a Magistrate as required by Section 155 of the Criminal Procedure Code to investigate the case. In empowering them to do this the Magistrate directed that they (the Police) should report to him. No report was ever made. Even if the Magistrate had not directed a report to be made, Section 173 of the Code requires that it should be made. The case is one that could not be disposed of without the order of the Magistrate in some form or another. But no report was made to the Magistrate and no order was made by him and the case as a matter of fact has never been disposed of. Meantime, however, the Police instituted proceedings against the persons who had given the information and prosecuted them under Section 2...
Emperor Vs. Bhagu Dhondi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1914
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR75
Heaton, J.1. This is a peculiar case, because although the applicant (we are dealing with the matter in revision) was convicted under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, it does not seem to have occurred to any body in the Court of the trying Magistrate that it was necessary definitely to prove the marriage; the marriage of course being that of the complainant and the woman with whom, he alleged, the accused had committed adultery. But it is necessary specifically to prove a marriage in a case under Section 497. This, I think, is so clea that I need say nothing more about it beyond referring to Section 50 of the Evidence Act. That section indicates quite clearly that conduct alone is not a sufficient basis for finding a marriage proved in a case of this kind. But as a matter of fact the evidence proves nothing more than conduct. It proves only that the man and woman spoke of each other as wife and husband and that some of those who were acquainted with them spoke of them as man and w...
Sadashiv Venkaji Joshi Vs. Narsingrao Konherrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Bom46(2); (1915)17BOMLR203
Shah, J.1. The question in this appeal is one of limitation. The lower Court has dismissed the Darkhast as time-barred on the ground that the Application No. 500 of 1906 which was presented on the 10th of November 1906 was not an application in accordance with law to the proper Court for execution. This application was held to be not in accordance with law, because under Section 47 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act it was not accompanied with a Conciliator's certificate as required by that section. In support of his conclusion the learned Judge has relied upon the case of Manohar v. Gebiapa I.L.R. (1881) 6 Bom. 31. Apart from the decision, it seems to me that an application for execution which is otherwise in accordance with law, is an application in accordance with law within the meaning of Article 182 of the Indian Limitation Act even though it is not accompanied with the Conciliator's certificate as required by the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. No doubt this view is in...
Hari Kishen Bhagat Vs. Kashi Pershad Singh and Bajrung Sahai Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1914
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR426
Ameer Ali, J.1. The question for determination in these appeals relates to the validity, as against the reversioners, of certain sales held in execution of decrees obtained on mortgages effected by a Hindu widow, who had succeeded to her husband's estate on his death without leaving any issue. Shyamal Singh, the husband, died in 1842, and the widow, Dulhin Nawab Kumari, held the properties which from the subject of the present litigation until the transactions the validity of which is challenged in these suits.2. The first mortgage was executed by Nawab Kumari in favour of the defendant-appellant, on the 26th of November 1877 in respect of three of the properties in her possession. On the nth of July 1882 she mortgaged the rest of the properties to Bhagat for a further loan, and in 1889 she gave him what is usually called in India a ticca pottah of the shares of Shyamal Singh in all the mouzaha save one. Under this usufructuary lease the defendant obtained possession of the shares cove...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›