Mumbai Court September 1915 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Babilal Balwant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom123; (1915)17BOMLR1078
1. In this case the learned Magistrate in examining two of the accused persons, while they were still in the position of accused persons and had obtained no order of discharge or acquittal, committed an irregularity. His action is not to be justified under Section 10 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The statements of these two accused persons were, therefore, inadmissible in evidence, and if those statements are discarded from the record, there is nothing in evidence which, despite the presumptions arising under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act, would warrant the conviction of this applicant. For those presumptions in this particular case are weakened by the circumstance that the gambling was taking place not in a close room, but in an open shed.2. The rule, therefore, must be made absolute, the fine, if paid, being refunded....
Tag this Judgment!Jayawant Jivanrao Deshpande Vs. Ramchandra Narayan Johsi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom300; (1916)ILR40Bom239
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff, claiming to be the reversioner of one Shamrao the original owner of the property, for redemption of a mortgage or for possession of the property. Shamrao, the original owner, had one son Kakaji who predeceased him, but left a widow Rangubai. Rangubai survived Shamrao, and she during her life enjoyed the property. She passed a mortgage-bond in favour of Narayan, father of the 1st defendant, on the 21st January 1860. In 1865 she disappeared, and she has not been heard of probably since 1865 or certainly since 1870 when she is alleged to have received a cash allowance. In 1861 a suit was filed against her by Bodhraj on a money-bond passed by Rangubai to him on the 18th February 1860, and Bodhraj obtained a decree on the 9th December 1862. The property was sold in execution of that decree, and Bodhraj became the purchaser at the execution sale in February 1868. In the same year Narayan, the father of defendant 1, filed a suit agai...
Tag this Judgment!Jayawant Jivanrao Deshpande Vs. Ramchandra Narayan Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1915
Reported in: 33Ind.Cas.484
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff, claiming to be the reversioner of one Shamrao, the original owner of the property, for redemption of a mortgage or for possession of the property. Shamrao, the original owner, had one son Kakaji who predeceased him, but left a widow Rangubai. Rangubai survived Shamrao, and she during her life enjoyed the property. She passed a mortgage-bond in favour of Narayan, father of the first defendant, on the 21st January 1860. In 1565 she disappeared, and she has not been heard of probably since 1865, or certainly since 1870, when she is alleged to have received a cash allowance. In 1861 a suit was filed against her by Bodhraj on a money-bond passed by Rangubai to him on the 18th February 1860, and Bodhraj obtained a decree on the 9th December 1862. The property was sold in execution of that decree, and Bodhraj became the purchaser at the execution sale in February 1868. In the same year Narayan, the father of defendant No. 1, filed a ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Dwarkadas Tejbhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom184; (1915)17BOMLR925
Davar, J.1. Dwarkadas Tejbhandas, Khusheram Tejbhandas and Girdhardas Tejbhandas, who were then trading in the name of Tejbhandas Dwarkadas, were on the 11th of April 1912, on the application of some of their creditors adjudicated insolvents in this Court and by an order made on such adjudication all their property vested in the Official Assignee. From the date of the adjudication up to the present time nothing seems to have been done. The adjudicated Insolvents have not even been called upon to file their schedule.2. It appears that the firm of Nursoomal Gokaldas, who claim to be the insolvents' creditors for Rs. 7100, in entire ignorance of the fact that their debtors had been adjudicated insolvents, filed three suits in the Shikarpore Court in 1915 to recover the sums of moneys which they alleged were due to them. When the suits come on the Judge's Board for hearing the insolvents objected to the suits going on, on the ground that the plaintiffs therein had not obtained the leave of...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkadas Damodar Vs. Dwarkadas Shamji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom267; (1915)17BOMLR938
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This appeal comes before us on a judgment of Mr. Justice Macleod upon an originating summons for the purpose of deciding certain questions with regard to a settlement executed by one Hakoobai on the nth of December 1873. The summons was taken out by one of the trustees of the settlement who also claimed to be a beneficiary entitled to the trust property in the events that had happened. The other parties to the summons were the other trustees and all persons who could conceivably be supposed to be interested as the heirs of the settlor or her daughter Gomtibai.2. The question concerning the plaintiff's beneficial interest was raised in the plaint in these terms:-The plaintiff says that he was born at the date of the said indenture and is the nearest heir of the said Gomtibai according to Hindu law, capable of taking any benefit under the said indenture, and submits that under the terms of the said indenture and a true construction thereof the plaintiff has become abs...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Fakira Appaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR1059
Batchelor, J.1. The appellant here was the 2nd accused before the Court of Session. Altogether there were five persons accused of the murder of one Yemnaya, and of these five the present appellant and another were convicted. The trial was held before a Jury and in the case of this appellant the Jury were unanimous against him.2. The case for the prosecution was that one Ningawa, the first accused before the Sessions Court, was the mistress of the deceased man; that she and several other villagers having a cause of ill-will against him, he was lured by her into her house on the 5th February last; that there he was murdered by the accused, that his dead body was carried away to a field about 1 1/2 miles distant, and was on a subsequent date removed to another spot in the site of a neighbouring village. The dead body was discovered in the morning of the 9th of February, and that night the woman Ningawa was arrested. The present appellant was arrested on the 10th of February. On the 12th o...
Tag this Judgment!Balappa Dundappa Todkal Vs. Chanbasappa Shivlingappa Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom150; (1915)17BOMLR1134; 33Ind.Cas.445
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit was instituted by the plaintiff for a declaration that a deed of exchange, dated 15th of June, 1900, was not binding on him and for recovery of possession of his one-fourth share in certain lands situated in Bailkur.2. The deed of exchange purported to be between the plaintiff, a minor, interested in his own right as the adopted son of a Vatandar acting through his natural father of the one part and the natural grandfather of the plaintiff of the other part.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the transaction in dispute was not in the interest of or for the benefit of the plaintiff; but he held that as the suit had not been brought within three years of the date of the deed of exchange, it was barred by the provisions of Article 91 of the Indian Limitation Act.4. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Judge of Bijapur. The issues raised for determination were: (1) Whether the exchange effected by the deed was in the interests or for the be...
Tag this Judgment!Fakira Appaya Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom249; 33Ind.Cas.309
Batchelor, J.1. The appellant here was the 2nd accused before the Court of Session. Altogether there were five persons accused of the murder of one Yemnaya, and of these five the present appellant and another were convicted. The trial was held before a Jury and in the case of this appellant the Jury were unanimous against him.2. The case for the prosecution was that one Ningawa, the first accused before the Sessions Court, was the mistress of the deceased man; that she and several other villagers having a cause of ill-will against him, he was lured by her into her house on the 5th February last; that there he was murdered by the accused, that his dead body was carried away to a field about 1 1/2 miles distant, and was on a sub-sequent date removed to another spot on the site of a neighbouring village. The dead body was discovered in the morning of the 9th of February, and that night the woman Ningawa was arrested. The present appellant was arrested on the 10th of February. On the 12th ...
Tag this Judgment!Fakirchand Lallubhai Vs. Naginchand Kalidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom222; (1915)17BOMLR1106; 33Ind.Cas.423
Batchelor, J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is, whether Mr. Justice Russell's decision in Suit No. 55 of 1910 brought in this Court is now res judicata between the parties. The learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has held that the decision is res judicata, and the plaintiffs-appellants contend that that view is erroneous.2. The Suit of 1910 was brought by the present plaintiffs' brother, an outside creditor, against the then defendants as being members of a partnership firm in which a sum of Rs. 17,500 had been deposited. It is admitted that that suit and the present suit were between the same parties. In the earlier suit, the father of the plaintiff No. 1 was defendant No. 4. He admitted his liability to the then plaintiff. The plaintiff in that suit had contended that the present respondents were liable as members of the partnership firm which had received the deposit, and the then 4th defendant, now the plaintiff, admitted or contended that that was the case. In...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanbhat Bhimbhat Joshi and anr. Vs. Akkubai Manoharbhat Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom275; 33Ind.Cas.576
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit was instituted by the plaintiff to obtain an injunction, which would give to her undisturbed control of the properties of her deceased husband, as against the 2nd defendant claiming to be her adopted son and for a declaration that he was not the adopted son and that the adoption deed alleged to have been passed by the plaintiff to the 2nd defendant was null and void on the ground that its execution was obtained by fraud. The 5th paragraph of the plaint contains the particulars of the fraud alleged to the following effect:The 1st defendant told me that pattas had to be got written for tenants in respect of lands of my ownership and took me to Athni four months ago and went with me to the, Sub-Registrar's Office and telling me he had papers prepared as mentioned by him and, asked me to sign my consent to registration. My mother being dead I had, since my infancy, lived in the 1st defendant's house and my marriage took place there and therefore relying on the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »