Mumbai Court April 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.
Nalini Kanta Lahiri Vs. Sarnamoyi Debya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1914
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR1
Moulton, J.1. In this case the original plaintiff (now represented by the appellants) was one of the co-sharers of a putni-talook. In past times, others of the co-sharers have been desirous to have their shares partitioned out to them, and accordingly brought suits for that purpose. To every one of those numerous suits the appellant was a party, and the object of each of those suits was to have the share of the plaintiff in the suit partitioned out by metes and bounds. Those suits have gone on until every co-sharer other than the plaintiff has had his share thus partitioned out, so that the plaintiff was left with the remainder as representing his share. In this suit he alleged that this remainder was insufficient to represent his share of the original putni-talook. It is evident that on examination of the claims of previous plaintiffs, he had convinced himself, and, so far as their Lordships know, convinced himself correctly, that in two cases the shares ascribed to other co-sharers w...
Agarsingji Raisingji Vs. Bai Naniba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-09-1914
Reported in: AIR1915Bom81; (1915)17BOMLR273
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was filed by the present Thakor of Gamph, Agarsingji Raisingji, to recover the village of Piperia in so far as it was not already in his possession from the three original defendants, namely, Bai Devba, widow of Kaliansingji Rupsingji, Pertapsing Shivsing, otherwise called Vijaysing, who was alleged to have been adopted by Devba, and Bai Shri Bairajba, who was alleged to be a mortgagee of the village of Piperia. The village of Piperia was one of the nine villages which at the beginning of the last century belonged to the Thakor of Gamph, a Thakor of the Chudasama Rajput clan whose home was in Kathiawar and adjacent to the Ahmedabad territory.2. The evidence shows that the Chudasama Rajputs many years ago migrated from Junagad into what is now the Dhandhuka Taluka of Ahmedabad, and there occupied all or most of the villages in that Taluka. In course of time, the estate which had been undivided became split up into different Talukdari estates by the pro...
Chaudhri Abdul Majid Vs. Jawahir Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR395
Moulton, J.1. In this case the relevant facts necessary and sufficient to determine their Lordships' decision on the appeal are very simple and are undisputed.2. The appellant is in the position of mortgagor and the respondents of mortgagees under a mortgage dated 3rd September 1868. In 1889 a suit was commenced before the Subordinate judge of Allahabad to enforce that mortgage, and on 12th May 1890 a decree was passed by him for the salt: of the property unless payment was made on or before 12th August 1890. An appeal was brought from that decree to the High Court and on 8th April 1893 that appeal was dismissed and the decree of the Subordinate Judge confirmed. The mortgagor obtained leave to appeal to this Board but did not prosecute his appeal, and on 13th May 1901 the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.3. The present appeal relates to an application to the Subordinate Judge, dated 1 the June 1909, for an order absolute to sell the mortgaged properties; in other words, for...
Rupchand Makandas Vs. Mukunda Mahadev
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom197; (1914)16BOMLR444
Shah, J.1. On the facts stated in the reference, we are clearly of opinion that the suit is not time-barred.2. The plaintiff applied for a certificate and obtained it at a time when the conciliation system was in existence and when under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act it was incumbent upon him to obtain such a certificate. He could have filed the suit in time and claimed the benefit of Section 48 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, had it not been for the fact that the Court was closed for the Summer Vacation from the 28th April to 8th June 1913. He filed the suit on the opening day after the vacation. The accident of the Local Government having cancelled the appointments of the Conciliators on the 10th May with effect from the 30th May 1913 cannot make any difference in the plaintiff's position. The suit, though filed on the 9th June when the conciliation system was abolished, was substantially one, to which the provisions of Chapter VI of the Dekkhan ...
Satyabhamabai Janardan Khare Vs. Govind Janku Bade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom201; (1914)16BOMLR441
Shah, J.1. The facts are stated in the reference. The question submitted for our opinion is whether the plaintiff is entitled to deduct the time between his application to the Conciliator and the termination of the Conciliation System in the District (i.e, from 28th March to 30th May 1913).2. As no certificate is granted by the Conciliator, it is quite clear that Section 48 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act has no application. There is no other statutory provision corresponding to Section 48 to cover a case of this kind. The period of limitation applicable, therefore, would be the period prescribed under the Limitation Act, unless the plaintiff could claim to have an extension of the time in any other way.3. It is clear that the plaintiff's suit would be in time if filed on the 31st May 1913. The Local Government cancelled the appointments of Conciliators in the District with effect from the 30th May 1913. The plaintiff had made his application to the Conciliator for a certifica...
Channing Arnold Vs. the Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR544
Shaw, J.1. By leave granted by His Majesty in Council this appeal is brought from a conviction of and sentence upon the appellant by the Chief Court of Lower Bu ma, pronounced on the 19th October 1913. The charge was one of defamation or criminal libel, and the prosecution was laid under the 21st chapter of the Indian Penal Code. In that chapter Section 499 gives a definition of defamation, and sets forth categorically no fewer than ten exceptions, any one of which forms a proper defence to the charge. By Section 500 it is provided that the punishment of defamation shall be ' simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.'2. The appellant was charged with having defamed Mr. G.P. Andrew, Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate of Mergui, by the publication of two articles in the Burma Critic, a Rangoon newspaper, on the 28th April 1912. These articles were entitled 'A Mockery of British Justice.'3. Mr. Arnold has had experience as a journal...
Rup Chand Makandas Vs. Mukunda Mahadev
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1914
Reported in: 25Ind.Cas.67
1. On the facts stated in the reference, we are clearly of opinion that the suit is not time-barred.2. The plaintiff applied for a certificate and obtained it at a time when the conciliation system was in existence and when under the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act it was incumbent upon him to obtain such a certificate. He could have filed the suit in time and claimed, the benefit of Section 48 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, had it not been for the fact that the Court was closed for the Summer Vacation from the 28th April to 8th Juno 1913. He filed the suit on the opening day after the vacation. The accident of the Local Government having cancelled the appointments of the Conciliators on the 10th May with effect from. the 30th May 1913 cannot make any difference in the plaintiff's position. The suit, though filed on the 9th June when the conciliation system, was abolished, was substantially one to which the provisions of Chapter VI of the Dekkhan Agricul...
In Re: N.F. Markur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1914
Reported in: (1917)ILR41Bom1; 33Ind.Cas.633
Shah, J.1. The learned Magistrate has based his order on the ground that the judgment of the civil Court is irrelevant. It also appears from his order that he was under the impression that the decision of the civil Court was in favour of the accused only partially, that is, with respect to certain items only. But it is admitted before us that all the items in dispute between the parties have been dealt with by the civil Court and that the contentions of the accused with reference to all of them have been found to be correct. Under the circumstances it appears to me that the judgment of the civil Court is admissible in evidence. The accused is charged with criminal breach of trust with reference to certain items. It would be certainly relevant and important to know what the rights of the parties (that is, the complainant and the accused) are with respect to those items. 'Where the civil liability is determined by a competent Court, the judgment of that Court would be the best evidence o...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›