Mumbai Court March 1915 Judgments
Khatija Vs. Shekh Adam Husenally Vasi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom59; (1915)17BOMLR574
Basil Scott, C.J.1. In this suit the plaintiff, a Mahomedan female, prays that accounts may be taken of the properties and business of the deceased Tyebally Sheikh Adam and his firm, and their claims and liabilities may be ascertained, and an order may be passed for its administration by the Court, and the claims of the claimants to the said estate and effects according to Mahomedan law applicable to the Ismaili Daoodi Shiah Sect and according to the custom of the said Daoodi Bohora community may be ascertained, proper direction may be given for that purpose and her share according to the claim that may be ascertained may be separated from the said properties and handed over to her; and that an order may be passed for the appointment of a receiver for the management of the properties and business of the deceased Tyebally Sheikh Adam and his firm pending this suit.2. The suit was valued at Rs. 130 for purposes of Court fees. In the 39th paragraph of the plaint she says that 'although it...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Hargovan Vs. Bai Gandi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom107; (1915)17BOMLR584
Basil Scott, C.J.1. These appeals are brought in two suits, the one being a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights, and the other a suit for dissolution of marriage. The plaintiff in the suit for restitution is the adult husband of the defendant a minor who has attained the age of puberty. The duty is imposed by Hindu law upon the wife to reside with her husband : see Tehait Mon Mohini Jemadai v. Basanta Kumar Singh I.L.R. (1901) Cal. 751. There is no evidence that he has been guilty of such conduct as would justify his wife in claiming the protection of the Court. The defence is that the defendant is no longer the plaintiff's wife and it is to obtain a declaration to that effect that the cross suit has been brought in her name. It is claimed that by virtue of a caste-custom the minor wife can by the expression of her desire so to do accompanied by a payment of money, the greater part of which goes to the caste and a small portion to the unwilling husband, free herself from the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Bal Gangadhar Tilak Vs. Shri Shriniwas Pandit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR527
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated 23rd September 1910, which reversed the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Poona, dated 31st July 1906.2. The main question to be determined on the appeal has reference to the validity of the adoption by the widow of the late Shri Vasudeo Harihar Pandit, alias Shri Baba Maharaj, of a son to her late husband. The appellant Jagannath claims to be the duly adopted son. This claim is resisted by the defendants and forms the issue in the case.3. The adoption is challenged substantially upon three grounds first, that it was never completed in fact. This in argument was reduced to the proposition that the whole transaction had been left at the stage of a proposal to be afterwards carried into effect. As to the adoption itself, it is maintained that there was never a complete giving and taking of the child, and in, particular he was not taken upon the lap of the adoptive mother. Secondly, th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dosabhai J. Dhondy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR488
Heaton, J.1. This is an unimportant case except in so far as the points argued before us touch on matters of principle. As it happens, there is a principle of considerable importance which does arise.2. What happened was this: cross complaints were filed, one in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, the other in the Court of another Presidency Magistrate. The second was transferred for trial to the Chief Presidency Magistrate. He heard the evidence for the prosecution in each of the cases. Then without framing a charge formally as required by Section 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code and without following the provisions of Sections 255, 256 and 257 in the first case, he dealt with it as if a charge had been framed and treated the evidence in the other case as defence evidence in the first. On that understanding, both cases were argued before him without any further evidence being taken, and both were decided. In doing this, the Magistrate followed a practice, we learn, which a...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudev Roghunath Oka Vs. Janardan Sadashiv Apte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR522
Shah, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the sale-deed of the 19th February 1906, under which the plaintiff claims, is voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act at the instance of the defendant, who is an auction purchaser of the right, title and interest of the plaintiff's vendors in the takshim, with which we are concerned in this suit.2. There is no dispute about the fact that the defendant purchased the right, title and interest of the heirs of the original owner Purshotam Oke in the takshim on the 22nd January 1909 in execution of a money decree against the said Purshotam and one Gopal Mahadev Gadgil with full notice of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. There was another similar sale-deed of the same date in favour of one Deodhar. But the claim on that sale-deed between Deodhar and the defendant has been compromised. It is common ground now that the plaintiff must succeed in this suit, if his sale-deed is good and operative. The objection ta...
Tag this Judgment!Mafatlal Motilal Vs. Kanialal Trikamlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom246; (1915)17BOMLR705; 30Ind.Cas.915
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The only questions with which we have to deal in this judgment arise upon the construction of the will of Mathuradas made in the year 1873 fr the later will upon which the respondent also relied as showing that Gangabai had an absolute interest in the property in suit has been held in litigation between the plaintiff and Ganga not to be proved.2. By the first clause of the will of 1873 the testator stated that his son Girdhar's conduct not being good he gave him no authority in that will and made no provision for him. We entertain no doubt that the testator excluded Girdharlal by these words from participation in the property dealt with by the will, which, upon the contentions of the parties, must be taken to be the self-acquisition of Mathuradas.3. The property is then described. It consisted of one house and the middle and third story of another house in Ahmedabad sufficiently capable of identification by the description given. The other immoveable property was on...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeo Raghunath Oka Vs. Janardhan Sadashiv Apte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom89; (1915)ILR39Bom507
Shah, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the sale-deed of the 19th February 1906, under which the plaintiff claims, is voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act at the instance of the defendant, who is an auction-purchaser of the right, title and interest of the plaintiff's vendors in the takshim, with which we are concerned in this suit.2. There is no dispute about the fact that the defendant purchased the right, title and interest of the heirs of the original owner Purshottam Oke in the takshim on the 22nd January 1909 in execution of a money-decree against the said Purshottam by one Gopal Mahadev Gadgil with full notice of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. There was another similar sale-deed of the same date in favour of one Deodhar. Bat the claim on that sale-deed between Deodhar and the defendant has been compromised. It is common ground now that the plain till must succeed in this suit, if his sale-deed is good and operative. The objection ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudev Raghunath Oka Vs. Janardan Sadashiv Apte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.497
Shah, J.1. The question in this second appeal is whether the sale-deed of the 19th February 1906, under which the plaintiff claims, is voidable under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act at the instance of the defendant, who is an auction-purchaser of the right, title and interest of the plaintiff's vendors in the takshim, with which we are concerned in this suit.2. There is no dispute about the fact that the defendant purchased the right, title and interest of the heirs of the original owner, Purshotam Oke, in the takshim on the 22nd January 1909 in execution of a money decree against the said Purshotam and one Gopal Mahadev Gadgil with full notice of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff. There was another similar sale-deed of the same date in favour of one Deodhar. But the claim on that sale-deed between Deodhar and the defendant has been compromised. It is common ground now that the plaintiff must succeed in this suit, if his sale-deed is good and operative. The objection ...
Tag this Judgment!Rasulkhan Hamadkhan and Gulab Chhitu Vs. the Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom72; (1915)17BOMLR513
Heaton, J.1. In this matter the following facts are either admitted or established beyond any real controversy.2. There is a certain plot of land which is used, and for many years has been used, as a graveyard, but also for storing wood. On the findings of the first Court which to this extent are not challenged in appeal, the occupants or persons who are in charge of the land whether with reference to its use as a graveyard or as timber store are the plaintiffs. This occupation had continued for at least fifty years before this suit was brought.3. Eventually the Government Officers decided that the plaintiffs should be evicted unless they ceased to use the land for the purpose of a wood store. I am describing the case in general, but I think insufficiently accurate, terms. Plaintiffs have brought this suit substantially to protect themselves against the proposed eviction by Government Officers unless they cease to use the land as a wood store. The acting District Judge who heard this c...
Tag this Judgment!V. Venkatanarayana Pillay Vs. V. Subbammal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR468
Ameer Ali, J.1. The question for their Lordships' decision arises upon a petition for substitution of the petitioner in place of the deceased appellant, Venkatanarayana, who has died since the filing of his appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. Venkatanarayana brought a suit, on the 29th of July 1907, in the High Court of Madras in its ordinary civil jurisdiction to obtain a declaration that the adoption of the second defendant by Subbammal, the first defendant, was invalid, and did not affect his (Venkatanarayana's) reversionary interest in the ancestral estate of one Venkatakrishna, deceased. Subbammal, in her answer, alleged that the adoption which the plaintiff sought to set aside was made by her under the authority of her husband given under a will. The plaintiff, on the other hand, contended that the authority so given was revoked by a subsequent will. The Courts in India have held on the construction of this document that it did not amount to a revocation. Venkatanarayana, after t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »