Mumbai Court December 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.
Sashi Bhushan Misra Vs. Raja Jyoti Prashad Singh Deo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR416
Buckmaster, Chancellor1. The appellants in this case are the descendants and representatives of certain Brahmins to whom, at a date uncertain, but antecedent to 1790, the then Raja of Pachete made a Mokurari grant of the village known as Mouzah Panchgachia; the question raised in this appeal is whether this grant carried with it the mineral rights in the soil.2. In considering the question it is important to avoid giving to words used in connection with legal transactions in India the special and technical meaning that they possess in this country. According to our law, the word ' grant' is strictly applicable to the conveyance at common law of remainders, reversions and incorporeal hereditaments, which do not lie in livery, or of which livery could not be given. But in connection with the present dispute, the word has no such meaning and it is important at the outset to bear this in mind.3. The grant under which the appellants claim cannot be found, nor is there any copy in existence,...
Shrinivasdas Bavri Vs. Maherbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR151
Parker, J.1. This appeal arises in a vendor and purchaser summons on the original side of the Bombay High Court under Rule 210 of the High Court Rules. The vendors were bound by their contract of the 18th October, 1913, to deduce ' a marketable title free from all reasonable doubts' to the property they contracted to sell. The question is whether they have discharged this obligation. Both the Judge of first instance and the High Court on appeal have answered this question in the affirmative. The purchaser is now appealing to His Majesty in Council.2. The material facts may be stated as follows : On the 26th April, 1892, Ramdass Kessowji the then owner of the property contracted to be sold, joined with Dwarkadass Shamji, the owner of an adjoining property, in mortgaging both properties to Damoderdass Sunderdass and Gordhandass Sundar-dass to secure a lac of rupees, with interest at 7 1/2 per cent. per annum. The mortgage was effected by an agreement of charge duly registered. It appears...
Deonandan Prashad Vs. Janki Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR410
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. This suit relates to a 12-annas share of Mouzah Tikarampur, Pergunnah Monghyr, being Towzi No. 5298. The property was offered for sale in the Collectorate of Monghyr, for the recovery of arrears of revenue, under the provisions of Act XI of 1859 on the 25th March, 1907 and was bought for the defendant, Babu Deonandan Prashad, a minor, in the name of Bunwari Lal. Before the sale it belonged as to 9 annas to the plaintiffs 7 to 16 and as to the remaining 3 annas to the plaintiffs 17 to 20, subject to a usufructuary mortgage of these 3 annas for the benefit of Deonandaa and to transfers of parts to the. plaintiffs 1 to 6.2. The suit, which impugns the sale, failed in the Court of first instance, but on appeal the plaintiffs' claim was upheld and a decree was passed on the 18th August, 1910, that Deonandan, through his certificated guardian, do convey the property to the plaintiffs.3. From this decree Deonandan has preferred this appeal. At one time the property was ...
In Re: Abdul Rahiman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1916
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR124
Heaton, J.1. This is a case in which a Magistrate, when making an order for the adjournment of the case he was trying, made also an order that the accused should pay the day's costs of the complainant, which he assessed at Rs. 30. We are not prepared to say that this order was illegal. It will be seen from the case of Mathura Prasad v. Basant Lal I.L.R. (1905) All. 207 that the Allahabad High Court has come to the conclusion that such an order is permitted by the terms of Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same conclusion, we gather, has been reached by the High Courts of Calcutta and Madras. But the Criminal Procedure Code does not make special provision for costs in the course of a criminal trial, and one thing seems to me to be perfectly clear, and it is this: that if Section 344 is to be regarded as justifying an order as to costs, it can only be where the circumstances are exceptional and where for some reason or another the ordinary every-day method of conducting ...
Govind Bhikaji Mahajan Vs. Bhau Gopal Lad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom128; (1917)19BOMLR147
Batchelor, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, sued to recover on two mortgage bonds. He was defeated in the lower appellate Court because the learned Assistant Judge was of opinion that the bonds were not validly attested as required by Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act.2. The question is, whether this opinion is correct. It is clear to us that in the circumstances of the case the provisions of Section 59 of the Transfer of Property Act are satisfied if the plaintiff can rely upon the scribe as an attesting witness. Now the state of facts in which this question is to be decided is this. Both the instruments stand on the same footing and it will be simpler to refer expressly to one only. The executant, then, of this bond was one Gopal Bapu, a marksman. The scribe was one Keshav Chintaman Vaishampayan. The body of the document ends with these words: 'I have duly passed in writing this deed of mortgage of my free will after receiving the moneys in cash. The hand-...
Mutu K.A. Ramanadham Chettiar Vs. Vada Levvai Marakayar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1916
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR401
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated the 8th February, 1910, affirming the decree of the District Judge of Tanjore, dated the 23rd April, 1906, which varied the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Negapatam, dated the 28th March, 1901.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was brought for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to bring certain lands to sale in execution of a decree obtained by him. The lands in question were comprised in a trust deed dated the 28th July, 1893, whereby they were settled substantially in trust to apply an indeterminate portion of the income for the due performance of customary fatehas for ancestors and to alms-giving and to apply the residue of the income in perpetuity for the benefit of the defendants and their descendants without power of alienation.3. The grantors in this deed, named Ahmed Naina Marakayar and Asan Kutu Saheb Marakayar, were brothers. They wera both Mahomedans of th...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›