Mumbai Court November 1916 Judgments
Raja Mahammad Abul Husan Khan Vs. Ram Pargash
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR202
John Edge, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals. The appellant in each of these appeals, Raja Mohammad Abul Husan Khan, is the plaintiff in the suit in which the appeal has arisen. The suits were brought to obtain the decision of the Civil Court as to the status of the defendants in two villages in Oudh. The title of the plaintiff as proprietor within the meaning of that term in Act XXII of 1886 and Act III of 1901 was not in dispute in either suit. In one of these suits Ram Pargash is the defendant and in the appeal relating to that suit he is the respondent here. In the other suit Prag, Bhagwan Dat and Suraj Bali were the defendants. Prag, Bhagwan Dat and the representatives of Suraj Bali, who has died, are the respondents here in the appeal which relates to that suit.2. In the suit in which Ram Pargash is the defendant the plaintiff asked for a decree for the proprietary possession of Mouza Kauria Pirhia and for a declaration that Ram Pargash had no proprietary right and no under...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmad Asmal Muse Vs. Bai Bibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom127; (1917)19BOMLR141
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. A deceased Mahomedan purported to dispose by will of certain bhag property and other property in favour of his widow, with a remainder to his daughter and her issue if she survived the widow. The plaintiff is a residuary of the testator according to Mahomedan law. He sues for a declaration that he is the nearest agnate of the deceased and that defendants 1 and 2, that is, the widow and the daughter, acquired no rights by the will and that he is entitled to the property after the death of the widow. The suit relates only to the Bhagdari properties, which in the absence of a will devolve by custom upon the Bhagdar's widow, if he dies sonless, for her life and after her death are inherited by his nearest male agnate to the exclusion of the daughter and sister. The plaintiff is, therefore, interested in the property both under the Mahomedan law and under the custom in the absence of a will. He charged that the widow and the daughter were managing the properties in ...
Tag this Judgment!Sulaiman Vs. Biyaththmma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR394
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. The plaintiffs and Mammad, the first defendant, who has died since the institution of this suit, were descendants from a common stock. It is the plaintiffs case that they were members of an undivided Mopla Tarwad governed by Marumakkaththayam law and that this Tarwad possessed considerable properties, including those in the suit. Mammad, it is alleged, was the senior and Karnavan of the whole Tarwad; and it is charged that he dealt with Tarwad property in fraud of the plaintiffs and improperly alienated portions of it to Sulaiman, the second defendant.2. The plaintiffs accordingly pray by their plaint that the first defendant be deposed from the management of the plaint properties, or in the alternative that the plaintiffs' right thereto be declared free of any encumbrance made by the first defendant. They further seek a declaration that the alienations in favour of the second defendant specified in the plaint are invalid and not binding against the plaintiffs.3....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Chhaba Dolsang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom96; (1917)19BOMLR60
1. The rule must be made absolute and the order awarding compensation to the accused under Section 250 must be set aside. The sum, if it has been paid, must be refunded.2. The reason is that Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code applies only to a case where a person is accused before a Magistrate of any offence triable by a Magistrate and here the person accused was accused of an offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code which is not triable by a Magistrate, but is triable exclusively by a Court of Session....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Pandu Namaji Gavande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom49; (1917)19BOMLR61
Batchelor, J.1. This application arises in the following circumstances:--The applicants are, or were, certain tenants of the opponent Mahomad Ismail Mahomad Abdulla, who is described before us as enjoying the title of Khan Saheb and the dignity of an Honorary Magistrate. In a prosecution of the applicants before the Sessions Court, the opponent in the course of his deposition made upon solemn affirmation the following statements : Answering the question whether he had been instrumental in financing the prosecution through his clerk Nara-yan, he said : ' I did not send him (Narayan) to instruct the pleaders from the commencement. I am not concerned with the result of the case. Hasu Earn Patil pays Mr. Rege pleader and also the other complainant Bala Ramji, etc. The Karkun did not come here to instruct Mr. Eege. I. did not retain any pleader for this case before the First Class Magistrate. I do not know that they (i.e. the pleaders) were paid each Rs. 50 per day. I have not spent a singl...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kareem Ranjan Khoji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR65
Batchelor, J.1. This case which falls under the Bombay District Municipalities Act (III of 1001) is, I think, best decided on its own facts without any attempt to lay down any general proposition from the complicated intricacies of the statute. Now the simple facts which we have before us here are these.2. On the 12th January 1916, the present applicant obtained from the Managing Committee of the Municipality a perfectly valid and legal permission to build his house with a certain gallery. He consequently began the building. On the 26th March following, there was communicated to him from the Municipality an order that the previous permission was revoked and that his building must be so modified as to leave a certain set-back to the detriment or the omission of his gallery. This order was the result of a resolution of the general body on the preceding day, the 25th of March. The applicant, notwithstanding this last-mentioned order, proceeded with his building in compliance with the perm...
Tag this Judgment!Maung Shwe Goh Vs. Maung Inn
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR179
Buckmaster, L.C.1. This appeal is a step-and their Lordships hope the last step-in litigation, which was commenced on the 17th August, 1906, by the present appellant, who claimed against one George William Davis specific performance of a contract dated the 4th April, 1906, for the sale of some 19,318 acres of land situate in the Pegu district, Lower Burma. The question raised depends on the true construction of this contract, but in order to understand its meaning it is necessary to consider some antecedent facts.2. On the 30th September, 1905, a formal mortgage of the property, which subsequently became the subject of the contract, was executed by the defentant Davis in favour of the appellant to secure the repayment of Rs. 50,000 on the 30th December, 1905, together with interest at the rate of eight annas per cent. per month and also interest thereafter at the current bank rate of interest in Rangoon. It appears from the mortgage that it was really given as security for the payment ...
Tag this Judgment!Kareem Ranjan Khoji Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom48; 39Ind.Cas.298
Batchelor, J.1. This case which falls under the Bombay District Municipalites Act (III of 1901) is, I think, best decided on its own facts without any attempt to lay down any general proposition from the complicated intricacies of the Statute. Now the simple facts which we have before us here are these.2. On the 12th January 1916 the present applicant obtained from the Managing Committee of the Municipality a perfectly valid and legal permission to build his house with a certain gallery. He consequently began the building. On the 26th March following, there was communicated to him from the Municipality an order that the previous permission was revoked and that his building must be so modified as to leave a certain set-back to the detriment or the omission of his gallery. This order was the result of a resolution of the general body on the preceding day, the 25th of March. The applicant, notwithstanding this last-mentioned order, proceeded with his building in compliance with the permis...
Tag this Judgment!Tavakalbhai Sultanbhai Vs. Imtiyajbegam Mirbanesaheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom104; (1917)19BOMLR97
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. By a document dated the 5th of August 1889, one Umrao Bibi purported to make a gift in favour of three persons, Mirza Vajir Beg, Imatiyaj Begum and Chaggan Bibi, of certain Inam lands. She stated that 'the lands have been given to you three as gifts. All my rights of ownership are transferred to you. The Vahivat or management of the lands should be made by one of you three, namely Vajir Beg and after paying Government dues, Rs. 40 should be paid out of the residue of the income annually to Imatiyaj Begum and the remainder should be divided equally between Mirza Vajir Beg and Chaggan Bibi. Mirza Vajir Beg should have Vahivat and give income according to their shares to the two. They have no right of claiming division of the lands from Mirza Beg, but only a right of claiming income every year'.2. Mirza Beg's interest in the property has now passed to the second defendant who contends that the deed of gift in so far it conferred benefits on the two women mentioned...
Tag this Judgment!Tavakalbhai Walad Sultanbhai Vs. Imatiyaj Begam Javje Mirbanesaheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR41Bom372
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. By a document dated the 5th of August 1889, one Umrao Bibi purported to make a gift in favour of three persons, Mirza Vazir Beg, Imatiyaj Begum and Chaggan Bibi, of certain Inam lands. She stated that 'the lands have been given to you three as gifts. All my rights of ownership are transferred to you. The Vahiwat or management of the lands should be made by one of you three, namely Vazir Beg, and after paying Government dues, Rs. 40 should be paid out of the residue of the income annually to Imatiyaj Begum, and the remainder should be devided equally between Mirza Vazir Beg and Chaggan Bibi. Mirza Vazir Beg should have Vahiwat and give income according to their shares to the two. They have no right of claiming division of the lands from Mirza Beg, but only a right of claiming income every year.'2. Mirza Beg's interest in the property has now passed to the second defendant who contends that the deed of gift in so far as it conferred benefits on the two women ment...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »