Mumbai Court July 1915 Judgments
Bai Bhicaiji Vs. Perojshaw Jivanji Kerawalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom284; (1915)17BOMLR1040
Beaman, J.1. This was a claim by the plaintiffs for injunction and damages, or damages in the alternative, against the defendant, Kerawalla, on account of the nuisance alleged to be caused to the plaintiffs by the stables of the defendant. The plaintiffs are husband and wife, the lady owning the tenement building which is alleged to suffer from the nuisance. This house was built in the year 1907 and Mrs. Bhicaiji Kumana, the first plaintiff, has since settled it on trust. In the meantime, she and her husband, with their family, resided up to a recent period on what are called the second and third floors of it. The suit, therefore, is brought by the plaintiffs in their double capacity, that is to say, as trustees interested in the reversion and as actual residents. The house consists of four floors. The ground floor is let to tenants of the humbler classes. The first floor used to be let to Mr. Katrak at a rent of Rs. 80 a month. The second and third floors, as I have said, were occupie...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Bhicaiji and ors. Vs. Perojshaw Jivanji Kerawalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.192
Beaman, J.1. This was a claim by the plaintiffs for injunction and damages, or damages in the alternative, against the defendant, Kerawalla, on account of the nuisance alleged to be caused to the plaintiffs by the stables of the defendant. The plaintiffs are husband and wife, the lady owning the tenement building which is alleged to suffer from the nuisance. This house was built in the year 1907 and Mrs. Bhicaiji Kumanna, the first plaintiff, has since settled it on trust. In the meantime, she and her husband, with their family, resided up to a recent period on what are called the second and third floors of it. The suit, therefore, is brought by the plaintiffs in their double capacity, that is to say, as trustees interested in the reversion and as actual residents. The house consists of four floors. The ground floor is let to tenants of the humbler classes. The first floor used to be let to Mr. Katrak at a rent of Its. 80 a month. The second and third floors, as I have said, were occup...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jivram Dankarji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom203; (1915)17BOMLR881
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad. The appellant has been convicted under Section 471 of the Indian-Penal Code of using as genuine a forged document. He was previously tried before the Court of Session in Ahmedabad under Sections 467 and 109, that is to say, on a charge of abetment of forgery in relation to the same document, Exh. 4, in respect of which he is now charged under Section 471, and on the charges under Sections 467 and 109 the appellant was acquitted by the Court of Session.2. The first point taken in the appellant's favour is that this previous acquittal was a bar to the present trial under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The contention is that the appellant's case falls under the first sub-section of Section 403. That sub-section provides that a person once acquitted shall not be liable to be tried again on the same facts for any other offence for which a different char...
Tag this Judgment!Buddha Singh Vs. Laltu Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR1022
Ameer Ali, J.1. The question for determination involved in this appeal is one of considerable importance under the Hindu law, and relates to the order of succession under the Mitakshara as expounded in the Benares School, among the collateral kindred belonging to the same paternal stock as the deceased.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was brought by the appellant Buddha Singh alias Chaturi Singh to establish his right as the nearest reversioner to the estate of one Saheb Sahai, who died in 1873 without leaving any male issue. Saheb Sahai was a minor and unmarried at the time of his death; his mother, Rani Kishori Kunwar, who survived him, accordingly came into the possession of his estate, which she held for nearly thirty-four years. She died in 1907, when the succession opened to the male collaterals of Saheb Sahai.3. The following genealogical table, on which both the Courts in India have based their judgments, will explain the relative position of the parties to this actio...
Tag this Judgment!Jivram Dankarji Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1915
Reported in: 31Ind.Cas.361
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad, The appellant has been convicted under Section 471 of the Indian Penal Code of using as genuine a forged document. He was previously tried before the Court of Session in Ahmedabad under Sections 467 and 109, that is to say, on a charge of abetment of forgery in relation to the same document, Exhibit 4, in respect of which he is now charged under Section 471, and on the charges under Sections 467 and 109 the appellant was acquitted by the Court of Session.2. The first point taken in the appellant's favour is that this previous acquittal was a bar to the present trial under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The contention is that the appellant's case falls under the first sub-section of Section 403. That sub-section provides that a person once acquitted shall not be liable to be tried again on the same facts for any other offence for which a different c...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Atrani Vs. Deepsing Baria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom269; (1915)17BOMLR1097
Batchelor, J.1. This application arises in the course of a pending suit in which the plaintiff claims to be the son, or at least the dasiputra, of a certain deceased Thakor; with his plaint the plaintiff presented an application praying for an injunction against the Thakor's senior widow, restraining her from making an adoption pending the decision of his status. The learned Subordinate Judge at first granted a temporary injunction against the widow, but afterwards, for reasons with which we are not at present concerned, he dissolved it. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge, who has granted a temporary injunction restraining the widow from adopting pending the decision of this suit. This application is made in order that the District Judge's injunction should be revised by this Court.2. Mr. Coyaji for the plaintiff takes the preliminary point that the application is not competent under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, and he relies mainly upon such cases as Chattar Sing...
Tag this Judgment!Kasturchand Lakhmaji Vs. Jakhia Padia Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom229; (1915)17BOMLR928
Batchelor, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought for a declaration that a certain apparent sale dated the 14th August 1902 was in reality a mortgage and for an order allowing the plaintiffs to redeem the property on payment to the defendants of any sum that might be found due to them on accounts taken under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. The question, which has divided the learned Judges below, was whether the transaction of the 14th August 1902 was an out and out sale or a mortgage by conditional sale. The learned trial Judge was of opinion that it was a sale, while the learned District Judge held that it was a mortgage by conditional sale.3. It may be observed that whether the transaction be regarded as a sale or a mortgage, the plaintiffs are still within time to recover their land. For, on the footing that the transaction was a sale with a right of repurchase in the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs are still entitled to repurchase. The object of the suit, t...
Tag this Judgment!Nazaralli Sayad Imam Vs. Babamiya Dureyatimsha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom244; (1915)17BOMLR701; 30Ind.Cas.913
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff sues the defendant to have it declared that he is entitled to recover half the share in the profit and loss made by the defendant in the grass contract for nine forest coups, and to recover the sum falling to his share as damages and costs. The defendant denied the alleged partnership in the terms set up in the plaint, and contended that the suit was bad as being based on an agreement, if there was such an agreement, which was void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.2. The learned Subordinate Judge found that the agreement was not unlawful under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. Therefore, he directed that a preliminary decree should be drawn up on that issue.3. The learned District Judge reversed the preliminary decree and remanded the case to the lower Court. The appellant has appealed to this Court on the ground that the lower Court erred in holding that the agreement of partnership was unlawful. But notwithstanding the pendency of the...
Tag this Judgment!Madappa Ganapa Hegde Vs. Jaki Ghosal Gabri Ghosal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom226; (1915)17BOMLR689; 30Ind.Cas.893
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal in execution and the appellant was the original applicant for execution. He is the purchaser of the interest of the plaintiff and the and defendant in Suit No. 74 of 1902 which was a partition suit. On the 31st March 1905, a decree was made in the suit, and the present application is for mesne profits owing under that decree from the 19th December 1900.2. The lower Court has found that the mesne profits due amount to Rs. 346-2-8, but admittedly that calculation is incorrect, and the exact sum due for mesne profits would be Rs. 445-8-0. On the other hand, under the same decree the respondents were entitled to costs which, as has now been ascertained, amount to Rs. 855.3. The case, therefore, appears to be one for the application of the rule enacted in Order XXI, Rule 19. For, this application is made for the execution of the decree under which two parties are entitled to recover sums of money from each other. The sums being unequal, Clause (b) of the ru...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Bilas Kunwar Vs. Desraj Ranjit Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR1006
George Farwell, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated 10th May 1910, of the High Court at Allahabad, which reversed a judgment and decree dated 26th August 1908, of the Judge of the Small Causes Court of Allahabad exercising the powers of a Subordinate Judge.2. Rai Bisheshar Bakhsh Singh was a Taluqdar of Oudh; he was a man of some wealth, a Rajput of good position; he had two Rajput wives but no son; he had, however, one daughter by one of the wives. He had also a Mahomedan mistress named Jagmar Bibi, by whom he had two sons, and for whom he had made provision on a fairly liberal scale, and had given full possession thereof in 1876 and in 1888. On 9th June 1887, the Taluqdar purchased for Rs. 9,000 the bungalow in dispute in this action; he raised the purchase money by a mortgage on his own property and paid for it, and had the sole use and enjoyment of it for himself and his wives during his own life, but the deed of sale was made out and registered in Jagmar's name...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »