Mumbai Court June 1915 Judgments
Padarath Halwai Vs. Pandit Ram NaIn Upadhia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR617
John Edge, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from decrees, dated respectively the 29th March 1909, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The two decrees appealed from were made in appeals in the same suit. The suit was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Jaunpur on the 29th November 1904 to enforce, by sale of the village Baragaon and other villages, the payment of Rs. 66,809 odd, due under a mortgage, dated the 25th June 1892. The Subordinate Judge decreed the claim in part, and in part dismissed it. Each side appealed to the High Court at Allahabad. The High Court dismissed the defendants' appeal, and in the plaintiffs' appeal gave them a decree for their claim.2. When these consolidated appeals first came on for hearing before this Board it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the mortgage upon which this suit was brought had not been attested by at least two witnesses, and as the amount secured by it exceeded one hundred rupees the alleged mortgage ...
Tag this Judgment!Achyut Rayapa Shanbhag Vs. Gopal Subbaya Shanbhag
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom196; (1915)17BOMLR635; 30Ind.Cas.399
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The defendant in this case, who is now the appellant, applied to the Mamlatdar of the District in which the land in suit is situate for record under the Record of Rights Act of a lease under which he claimed to be entitled to a rent of 400 cocoanuts. That application was made in or about the beginning of August 1908, and upon notice being given to the respondent-plaintiff, who was the alleged lessee, the plaintiff complained that the document was a forgery. The Mamlatdar, thereupon, declined to record it and returned it to the applicant. The applicant was not satisfied and applied to the Collector to have the document recorded. That application was not disposed of until the following year, and on the 11th of August 1909, the Collector ordered that the lease should be recorded, and from that date it was recorded in the Record of Rights in effect that the defendant was the landlord of the plaintiff. On the strength of that record, the defendant sued in the Mamlatdar's...
Tag this Judgment!Pranjivandas Shivlal Vs. Ichharam Vijbhukhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom255; (1915)17BOMLR712; 30Ind.Cas.918
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal brought from a preliminary decree made by the learned Subordinate Judge of Surat in a suit for partition. The appeal is brought by the defendants Nos. 6 to 11 and 13 who are represented before us by Diwan Bahadur G.S. Rao.2. The genealogical tree of the parties, which is requisite to an understanding of the points involved, is set out at the beginning of the judgment of the lower Court and need not now be repeated. The main argument on behalf of the appellants has been that the plaintiff's share in the family property should be only 1/4th and not 1/3rd as the learned Judge below has decided. As there are now existing only three branches descended from the original ancestor, Sambhulal, it is clear, and is admitted, that if partition is to be made having regard only to the present state of the family, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd. But, says Mr. Rao, his claim is reduced to 1/4th owing to the circumstance that in 1892 his brother Magan separated fro...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipality of Ratnagiri Vs. Vasudev Balkrishna Lotlikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom121; (1915)17BOMLR652
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This was a suit filed by the plaintiff who was formerly the Municipal Secretary of the Ratnagiri Municipality against that Municipality, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal. The learned Assistant Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 167 of the District Municipalities Act. That section provides that:-No suit shall be commenced against any Municipality...for anything done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of this Act, without giving to such Municipality...one month's previous notice in writing of the intended suit and of the cause thereof, nor after six months from the date of the act complained of.2. The suit was instituted more than six months after the dismissal of the plaintiff by the Municipality, and the question raised in the preliminary issue was whether the dismissal was something done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of the Act. The learned Assistant Judge held that it was done in pu...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Tikaram Sakharam Kasar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR678; 30Ind.Cas.641
1. This is an application in revision made against a conviction under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The only point taken on behalf of the applicant is that the conviction is bad under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code by reason of the fact that at the preceding trial before the Court of Session the applicant was acquitted in respect of certain offences said to have arisen out of the same transaction.2. The trial before the Court of Session proceeded under Sections 366, 368 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, and there was not before the Court of Session any complaint by the husband of the woman. Under Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code such complaint by the husband is a condition precedent to the Court's jurisdiction to try under Section 498: see Bangaru Asari v. Emperor(1). There being no such complaint by the husband before the Court of Session, that Court not only did not in fact try, but was in law incompetent to try the offence alleged under Section 498. Sin...
Tag this Judgment!Parvatibai Shankar Vs. Bhagwant Pandharinath Pathak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom265(1); (1915)17BOMLR646
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The first question which arises in this case is whether there has been a valid disposition by way of legacy in favour of certain female relations of the testator Pandharinath, for if that point is decided in favour of the appellant, it will dispose of the whole case. The learned Judges both in the Subordinate Court and in the District Court have taken as the fundamental proposition upon which the case must be decided, that whatever property is so completely under the control of the testator that he may give it away in specie during his lifetime, he may also devise by will. That is the form in which the proposition is adopted by the Subordinate Judge. In the District Court the proposition is stated as follows: 'A : Hindu who is of sound mind, and not a minor, can by gift dispose of all property in which he has an absolute interest and can, by will, dispose of all property which he may give away in his lifetime;' and it is said that because the author of the Mitakshar...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Venkaji Naik Vs. Kallo Devji Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR630; 30Ind.Cas.396
Basil Scott, C.J.1. Two points have been argued in this appeal; first, that the mortgagee who issued for redemption under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act in respect of certain vatan property must be taken to have been in adverse possession, and to have acquired an absolute title by reason of the provisions of Section 5 of the Watan Act which render the mortgage invalid after the death of the original vatandar-mortgagor. But the Indian Limitation Act cannot be invoked to enforce any such conclusion, for the presumption is that unless there is some definite indication on the part of the person in possession that he will, from a certain date, claim as absolute owner and not as mortgagee, he can only acquire by adverse possession the limited interest to which he was entitled at the mortgagor's death, namely, that of a mortgagee. He, therefore, remains a mortgagee for the purpose of the redemption suit, even assuming that he has been in possession for more than twelve years since the...
Tag this Judgment!Virchand Vajekaran Shet Vs. Kondu Kasam Atar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom272; (1915)17BOMLR685
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit was brought by a mortgagee under a simple mortgage to recover the amount of his claim by sale of the mortgaged property.2. The mortgage was effected on the 23rd of June 1899, the mortgage-debt becoming due on demand which was made on the 1st January 1900. The suit was instituted after the death of the mortgagor, a Mahomedan, against his only son, a minor, on the 23rd of June 1911. It was, therefore, within time if properly constituted.3. The plaint alleged that the mortgagor was dead, that his only heir was the defendant and that the property of the deceased was in that defendant's possession.4. The defendant's guardian having alleged that the deceased left other heirs, a widow and two daughters, the plaintiff applied, on the 29th of January 1912, to have them added as parties and they were so added on the 12th of February 1912.5. It was then contended by the added defendants that the suit was barred as against them under Section 22 of the Indian Limitatio...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mallapa Mallapa Tavargi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR676; 30Ind.Cas.652
1. This is an appeal against an order made by the learned District Judge of Dharwar directing that the appellant should be prosecuted for disobedience of the District Court's order made under the Guardians and Wards Act.2. It appears that a temporary injunction was issued against the present appellant directing him not to marry the two minor girls, Hanmava and Basava, but that thereafter he handed over the minors to his sister Baslingava and she brought about the marriage of the infants. It is stated by Mr. Mulgaorikar, on behalf of the appellant, that the temporary injunction issued against the present appellant was never carried further, but was merged in the ultimate order of the Court which vested the guardianship of the minors in one Hanmantgavda. It may be that these circumstances would throw difficulty in the way of the execution of the order under appeal. But, however that may be, it seems to us that the order is unsustainable upon another ground. The learned Judge, though he d...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipality of Ratnagiri Vs. Vasudeo Balkrishna Lotlikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-09-1915
Reported in: (1915)ILR39Bom600
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This was a suit filed by the plaintiff, who was formerly the Municipal Secretary of the Ratnagiri Municipality, against that Municipality, claiming damages for wrongful dismissal. The learned Assistant Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 167 of the District Municipal Act. That section provides that:No suit shall be commenced against any Municipality...for anything done, or purporting to have been done, in pursuance of this Act, without giving to such Municipality...one month's previous notice in writing of the intended suit and of the cause thereof, nor after six months from the date of the act complained of.2. The suit was instituted more than six months after the dismissal of the plaintiff by the Municipality, and the question raised in the preliminary issue was whether the dismissal was something done, or purporting to have been done in pursuance of the Act. The learned Assistant Judge held that it was done in pu...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »