Mumbai Court March 1915 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.
Mahant Lahar Puri Vs. Mahant Puran Nath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR475
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated the 11th March 1912, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Saharanpur, dated the 29th November 1909, and dismissed the suit with costs. The suit was brought on the 12th January 1909 by Lahar Puri, who is the appellant, against Puran Puri, who is the respondent. The dispute between the parties to this appeal relates to the title to the mahantship of a Hindu math, or temple, at Hardwar, known as the Akhara Baba Sarwan Nath, and to the property appertaining to the math.2. The math was founded by one Baba Sarwan Nath, who was a Sunniyasi Rukhar Fakir and died in 1849. Since his death there have been several mahants of the math in succession. It does not appear that Baba Sarwan Nath, in founding the math, prescribed any rules or practice to be followed in the selection and appointment of the future mahants. Consequently, the selection and appointment of a person to be the mahant...
Chhaganlal Himatlal Vs. the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom28(1); (1915)17BOMLR339
Shah, J.1. The only point urged in these applications by way of objection to the decision of the lower appellate Court is that, in virtue of Order XXXV, Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, it was not competent to the Railway Company to institute an interpleader suit as it was an agent of the consignors. No authority has been cited in support of the proposition that the Railway Company by accepting goods for carriage becomes an agent of the consignors within the meaning of this rule. We do not think that the provisions of the Indian Railways Act and the Indian Contract Act lend any colour to such a contention; on the contrary, they indicate that by accepting the goods the Company enters into an independent contract with the consignors for the carriage of the goods.2. The result, therefore; is that the rules must be discharged with costs....
Dayabhai Raghunathdas Vs. Bai Parvati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom62; (1915)17BOMLR332
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal under the Guardians and Wards Act. It arises out of an application made by the appellant to the District Court of Surat under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act for the custody of his minor daughter Bai Mani.2. The lower Court has rejected this application on the ground that unless the appellant takes steps to be appointed a guardian of the minor, no application under Section 25 could be entertained by that Court.3. The correctness of this view has been questioned before us in this appeal. A 'guardian,' as defined by the Act, means a person having the care of the person of a minor or of his property, or of both his person and property. The appellant is the father of the minor and claims to be her natural guardian. Section 25 refers to the custody of a guardian and not of a guardian appointed under the Act. This distinction between a guardian and a guardian appointed under the Act is to be noticed throughout the Act. As an illustration we may refer to...
Narbadashankar Mugatram Vyas Vs. Kevaldas Raghunathdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom41; (1915)17BOMLR510
Heaton, J.1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit in the Court of the Additional First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad and moved the Court to appoint a receiver. The Court heard the parties and made this order:-' I therefore hold that a proper person should be appointed a receiver. The parties will be further heard on the point as to who should be appointed a receiver.' Against this order the defendant in the suit has appealed.2. His appeal is met by the preliminary objection that it does not lie. It does not lie certainly unless it comes under Clause (s) of Order XLIII of the Civil Procedure Code, which provides for an appeal against an order under Rule 1 or Rule 4 of Order XL. It is not pretended that this is an order under Rule 4 of Order XL, but it is maintained that it is an order under Rule 1. It can only be an order under Rule 1 if it fall within the terms of Clause (a) of the rule that the Court may appoint a receiver of any property.3. It seems to me that the Court h...
Dalpatsinghji Naharsinghji Vs. Raisingji Naharsingji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom98; (1915)17BOMLR566
Shah, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these. Narsingji, Thakor of Mehelol, died in the year 1883, leaving two widows, Dariaba and Bajirajba. Bajirajba gave birth to a son named Raisinghji, whose legitimacy was disputed by Dariaba. Bajirajba filed Suit No. 967 of 1886 to establish that Raisingji was the natural son of Narsingji. She succeeded in the suit, but in appeal the High Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and held that Raisinghji was not the son of Narsingji. There was an appeal, however, preferred by Bajirajba to Her Majesty in Council with the result that the decision of the High Court was reversed and that of the trial Court restored in 1898. The High Court decided the appeal on the 25th July 1892. A few days after that Dariaba adopted Dalpatsingji, the present plaintiff, on the 8th August 1892, before the application for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council was made on the 17th November 1892. The estate was managed by the Collect...
Dalpatsingji Naharsingji Vs. Raisingji Naharsingji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.943
Shah, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these. Narsingji, Thakor of Mebelol, died in the year 1883, leaving two widows, Dariaba and Bajirajha. Bajiraja gave birth to a son named Raisingji, whose legitimacy was disputed by Dariaba. Bajiraja filed Suit No. 967 of 1886 to establish that Raisingji was the natural son of Narsingji. She succeeded in the suit, but in appeal the High Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and held that Raisingji was not the son of Narsingji. There was an appeal, however, preferred by Bajiraja to 'Her Majesty in Council, with the result that the decision of the High Court was reversed and that of the trial Court restored in 1898. The High Court decided the appeal on the 25th July 1892. A few days after that Dariaba adopted Dalpatsingji, the present plaintiff, on the 8th August 1892, before the application for leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council was made on the 17th November 1892. The estate was managed by the Collector ...
Daya Khushal Vs. Bai Bhikhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR504
Batchelor, J.1. This is a case in which the point involved is as to the right of succession to certain Matadari property. The appeal arises in the following state of facts. The genealogy of the parties is as follows :- Laxmi | ----------------------------------- | | Mona Kashi=Kasanji=another wife | | | (Jivi)Fakira Ratanji Bhana | (deceased | Bhikhi Matader) Khusal(Plaintiff 2) Dahya (Defendant 1)2. The present contest is between Bhikhi, the original 2nd plaintiff, and Dahya the 1st defendant. Ratanji Kasanji, the representative Matadar died in 1908 or 1909 without issue. Disputes as to the succession to the Matadari property immediately arose, and the Collector of the District and the Commissioner of the Division decided against the claim of the 1st defendant. The Government of Bombay, however, in 1912 took the other view, and reversing the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner declared the 1st defendant to be the next heir of the deceased, and accordingly ordered the entry of...
Ramchandra Natha Vs. the Great Indian Peninsula Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom24; (1915)17BOMLR496
Heaton, J.1. This is a case in which the plaintiffs have claimed damages from the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company on account of certain goods which were destroyed after they had been placed on the Railway Company's premises and which the plaintiffs allege in effect had been delivered to the Company for the purpose of carriage by railway. The suit was disposed of by a Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in favour of the defendant, and after a hearing before the Full Bench the same conclusion was reached.2. An application was made to this Court by the plaintiffs, a rule was issued and we have heard the matter fully argued. As neither the applicants nor the opponent have any objection to our disposing of this matter, I do not propose to say anything on the question of our jurisdiction except that so far as I am enabled to form an opinion in the absence of arguments, I do not see any serious reason to doubt that we have jurisdiction.3. Section 72, so far as it covers this c...
Dahya Khusal Vs. Bai Bhikhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.500
Batchelor, J.1. This is a case in which the point involved is as to the right of succession to certain Matadari property. The appeal arises in the following state of facts. The genealogy of the parties is as follows: Laxmi | |------------------------------| |Mona, Kashi==Kasanji==another wife (Jivi)| | || Ratanji Bhana,Fakira, (deceased || Matadar) Khusal Duhya (Defendant No. 1)|Bhikhi(Plaintiff No. 2)2. The present contest is between Bhikhi, the original 2nd plaintiff, and Dahya the 1st defendant. Ratanji Kasanji, the representative Matadar, died in 1908 or 1909 without issue. Disputes as to the succession to the Matadari property immediately arose, and the Collector of the District and the Commissioner of the Division decided against the claim of the 1st defendant. The Government of Bombay, however, in 1912 took the other view, and reversing the orders of the Collector and Commissioner declared the 1st defendant to be the next heir of the deceased, and accordingly ordered the entry o...
Ramachandra Natha and ors. Vs. the Great Indian Peninsula Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1915
Reported in: 29Ind.Cas.545
Heaton, J.1. This is a case in which the plaintiffs have claimed damages from the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company on account of certain goods, which were destroyed after they had been placed on the Railway Company's premises and which the plaintiffs allege in perfect had been delivered to the Company for the purpose of carriage by Railway. The suit was disposed of by a Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Bombay in favour of the defendant, and after a hearing before the Full Bench the same conclusion was reached.2. An application was made to this Court by the plaintiffs, a Rule was issued and we have heard the matter fully argued. As neither the applicants nor the opponent, have any objection to our disposing of this matter, I do not propose to say anything on the question of pur jurisdiction except that so far as I am enabled to form an opinion in the absence of arguments, I do not see any serious reason to doubt that we have jurisdiction.3. Section 72, so far as it covers thi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »