Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1914)16BOMLR684
Shah, J.1. The District Magistrate of Surat purporting to act under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, has made an order directing 'all persons to abstain from removing or causing to be removed or promoting, aiding, or abetting, directly or indirectly, in any way the removal of any dogs, either in carts, or otherwise, and from preventing or trying to prevent or obstruct directly or indirectly, the poisoning of such dogs in any way and from taking possession of or confining such dogs.' It is mentioned in the order that ' it applies to Surat City and all places within five miles of Surat City.' Under Section 144, however, the District Magistrate has power only to direct an order to a particular individual or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place. It is quite clear that this order complies with neither of these requirements. It is, therefore, made without jurisdiction. It is needless to consider the other objections urged on behalf of the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1914Bom294; (1914)16BOMLR720
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an ejectment suit in which the plaintiff represents the landlord under two agreements of 1859 and 1860 and the defendants represent the tenant under those agreements.2. The question is whether the plaintiff is entitled at any time to determine the tenancy which has been subsisting since the date of those agreements.3. Now, the first of them, Ex. A, is dated the 5th of March 1859, and the tenant there agrees as follows :-There is your Wadi by name Charni situate on the sea-shore. I have taken the land Fazindari (or on Fazindari or as Fazindar) being a portion of this Wadi on the Southern side for building a Cadjan house. On this land I shall build a house at my cost within Rs. 50. The ground rent is fixed at Rs. 6 per annum which I will continue to pay from year to year. I will pay the assessment, and, if at any time you be in need of the ground appertaining to this house, I am to give the said ground to you and you are to pay me Rs. 50 being a valuation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1915Bom313; (1915)17BOMLR133
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendant submitted their original differences to arbitration in the year 1887. Upon the award a consent-decree was taken creating what appears to have been a usufructuary mortgage in the plaintiff's favour. The scheme of that award was clearly to pay off the sum of Rs. 41,000, said to be due by the defendant to the plaintiff, in fourteen years, by instalments of Rs. 3,100 a year, and in the fourteenth year an instalment covering the balance. The plaintiff was to be put in possession of the defendant's lands and also to receive the defendant's share of the revenues of three Inam villages. It is in respect of this latter part of the decree that the point arose with which alone we are now concerned.2. In 1894 the plaintiff put in a Darkhast for the execution of this decree, and it appears that in the proceedings taken upon that Darkhast the plaintiff and defendant entered into a further agreement, the main purpose of which was to constitute the defendan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1914Bom124(1); (1914)16BOMLR683
Heaton, J.1. The Additional Sessions Judge of Poona has referred this case to us. It seems that a creditor was convicted and sentenced under Section 67 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act for not giving a receipt as required by Section 64. The Additional Sessions Judge was under the impression that Section 64 did not apply to the case, because the only payment in respect of which he found it proved that a receipt was not given, was the delivery of two bullocks, whereas the section speaks of money. The definition of money, however, in the Act itself says that money shall be deemed to include agricultural produce, implements, and stock. Under the head of Stock it would necessarily include cattle. The conviction, therefore, so far as the law goes, is perfectly correct. Nor do we see any good reason to induce us to interfere with the conviction in so far as it is based on evidence. But it seems to us that the fine circumstances is somewhat excessive and we reduce it Rs. 15 The differ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1914Bom22; (1914)16BOMLR749
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Surat City Municipality against the decree of a District Judge, varying the decree of the first Court and holding that the plaintiff was entitled only to a sum of Rs. 23-13-0 in respect of moneys paid by him under protest to release certain property which was distrained by the Municipality in respect of arrears of taxes for a portion of the house in his possession. The money was recoverable by the plaintiff as having been paid under protest if he was able to show that the distress was not in accordance with law.2. Now the power of the Municipality to levy distress upon the moveable property of a person from whom a tax is claimable depends upon the provisions of Chapter VIII of the District Municipal Act (Bom. Act III of 1901). It provides that: ' When any amount, which is claimable as an amount on account of any tax which is now imposed in any municipal district, shall have become due, the Municipality shall, with the least practicable ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1914Bom148; (1914)16BOMLR676
Beaman, J.1. Without going into the entangled story of the litigation which has preceded the present suit, it is enough for all purposes of this appeal to say that the plaintiff after having been defeated under Order XXI, Rule 99, has brought a suit under Rule 103 of the same Order. In that suit he sought for and obtained from the trial Judge a temporary injunction restraining the defendant in the suit from taking possession of the property. Such a temporary injunction, we think, cannot be brought within the terms or the intention of Order XXXIX, Rule 1 or 2. It was, therefore, not within the competence of the learned Judge below to grant the temporary injunction complained of, and we think that this appeal must be allowed, and the order granting the plaintiff a temporary injunction must be set aside, and that injunction dissolved. Costs to be costs in the cause....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1914Bom251; (1914)16BOMLR692
Beaman, J.1. The petitioner-appellant is assignee of certain debts alleged to be due by defendant-Company to its late Secretary and Manager, Mr. Kevaldas, and his benamidars, his wife and daughter. The petitioner-appellant gave the Company notice on the 7th of October 1912 and demanded payment. On the 24th of October 1912 the Company replied in a rather vaguely worded letter, the general content of which, however, clearly indicates the line of defence subsequently adopted by the Company. On the 15th of November the petitioner, instead of accepting the Company's challenge and bringing a suit to vindicate the justice of his demand, put in a winding-up petition. This came on before the District Judge, and the Company replied in effect that the alleged demand was in respect of a claim which the Company honestly believed to be a fraudulent claim and unsustainable at law. The matter appeared to the learned District Judge to be one of great complexity, and we think that in declining to go int...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1914Bom232; (1914)16BOMLR678
Heaton, J.1. The Sessions Judge of Kanara has referred to us a case, which has been committed to him, on the ground that the commitment was illegal and ought to be quashed.2. What had happened is this: After the death of a certain person, another person put forward a will which, he said, had been made by the deceased, and in virtue of this will be claimed a change in the entries in the Record of Rights. This claim became a disputed claim which, under rules made by the Government, had to be enquired into by the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar made his enquiry; he saw the will produced before him. He came to the conclusion that there was grave suspicion attaching to the will and he declined to recognize it as a basis for any change in the Record of Rights. Eventually the case was taken up by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Clause (c) of Section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code and was inquired into by him as a Magistrate and finally was committed to the Court of Session. As I mention his pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1914Bom281; (1914)16BOMLR671
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The defendant in this suit has had dealings with the plaintiff for many years, and has advanced money to him upon mortgage, and balances clue on old accounts have been secured by the mortgage of property of the plaintiff. The mortgage-bonds outstanding at present are Exts. 63, 64 & 65, which do not all relate to the same property, Ex. 65 relating to property entirely different fron that to which Exts. 63 & 64 relate. The last of these mortgage-bonds was executed in December 1903. Further monetary dealings took place between the plaintiff and the defendant which are evidenced by promissory-notes commencing with the 1st of August 1905. The defendant in 1909 and 1910 brought four suits in the Jalgaon Court upon promissory-notes executed by the plaintiff subsequent to July 1905.2. The plaintiff then instituted a suit for a general account under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and for redemption of the mortgaged property, and upon his application the four su...
Tag this Judgment!