Mumbai Court November 1916 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.
Beg Vs. Allah Ditta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR388
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of the Punjab, dated the 23rd of December, 1908 and arises out of a suit instituted by the-plaintiffs, respondents, so long ago as the 4th April, 1900, in the Court of the Additional District Judge of Jhang, for possession of some landed property situated in that District.2. The property in suit was owned and possessed by one Shahamad, a Mahomedan Jat, belonging to the sub-community of Dabs, settled in the Jhang District in Southern Punjab. Shahamad died many years ago, leaving a widow, Sahib Bibi and a daughter named Jindwadi, who was married to a near cousin of the name of Daim. The defendant, appellant, is the son of Daim and Jindwadi. On Shahamad's death, his widow succeeded to his entire inheritance and remained in possession until her death, which is stated to have occurred a year before the litigation commenced. On the widow s death, Jindwadi, acting on behalf of her son, obtained an order from the C...
Emperor Vs. Bhagava Giriyappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR54
1. In this case there is no appearance on behalf of the appellants, but we have heard the Government Pleader for the Crown.2. The appellant No. 1 was the wife of one Giriyappa, but was in illicit relations with the accused No. 2, Mohidin. The appellant No. 3 Irrappa was a go-between. They have been convicted of attempting to murder or abetting the attempt to murder Giriyappa, the husband of the 1st appellant, whom the appellant injured by mixing dhatura with his food, having received this dhaturu from accused Nos. 2 and 3.3. The evidence leaves no doubt as to the guilt of the accused Nos. 2 and 3 who have properly been convicted of the abetment of the attempt to murder. But the sentences passed upon them seem to us to be excessive. We reduce the sentences in each case to 'five years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 and 109 and 328 and 109, the sentences to be concurrent.4. As to the wife, the accused No. 1, the question is one of more difficulty and on the whole we are not sati...
Chhatrapat Singh Dugar Vs. Kharag Singh Lachmiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR174
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. Chhatrapat Singh Dugar, the present appellant, on the 21st May, 1909, presented as a debtor an insolvency petition under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1907, to the District Court of Murshidabad for an order adjudging him an insolvent.2. His application was opposed by the present respondents and was dismissed. The debtor's consequent appeal to the High Court in Bengal was dismissed by an order of the 12th April, 1912 and an application for review of the High Court's judgment was equally unsuccessful. This appeal has been preferred by the, debtor to His Majesty in Council from the High Court's order of the 12th April, 1912.3. The Provincial Insolvency Act presents a complete and exact delineation of a debtor's right to ad order of adjudication, on his own petition. Subject to the conditions specified in the Act, if a debtor commits an act of insolvency an insolvency petition may be presented by the debtor and the Court may on such petition make an order adjudging ...
Emperor Vs. Bai Ganga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR56
Batchelor J.1. The appellants in this case have been convicted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code which provides punishment for marrying again during the lifetime of a husband in all cases where such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life-time of such husband.2. The facts upon which the conviction has proceeded are not disputed and are these:--The 1st accused Ganga was married to the complainant about 18 years ago, she then being about six years old and the complainant being about 9. The marriage was not consummated and shortly after it the complainant proceeded to Kimberly in South Africa for the purpose of earning his livelihood. During his absence there, though he did write to his own uncle, it appears that he did not communicate with his wife Ganga, nor did he furnish her with maintenance. Ultimately in the absence of the husband a fargati was obtained by the caste who took a sum of Rs. 110 from the accused No. 3 and the palla, ornaments. Upon the fa...
Bai Ganga Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1916
Reported in: 39Ind.Cas.308
Batchelor, J.1. The appellants in this case have been convicted under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides punishment for marrying again during the lifetime of a husband in all cases where such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the lifetime of such husband.2. The facts upon which the conviction has proceeded are not disputed and are these:3. The first accused Ganga was married to the complainant about eighteen years ago, she then being about six years old and the complainant being about nine. The marriage was not consummated and shortly after it the complainant proceeded to Kimberly in South Africa for the purpose of earning his livelihood. During his absence there, though he did write to his own uncle, it appears that he did not communicate with his wife Ganga, nor did he furnish her with maintenance. Ultimately in the absence of the husband a, fargati was obtained by the caste, who took a sum of Rs. 110 from the accused No. 3 and the palla ornament...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›