Mumbai Court February 1916 Judgments
Bakir Saheb Amir Saheb Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom218; 34Ind.Cas.969
Batchelor, J.1. The first point taken in this appeal is a question of law which arises in this way;--The appellant, Bakir, has been convicted of making a false charge against one Aliser. The appellant had alleged that this Aliser had stolen a thousand rupee note from him. Aliser was convicted by the Magistrate in regard to this theft, but the convicton was set aside on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge. After setting aside the conviction, the Sessions Judge entered upon an inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining whether such proceedings as these should not be instituted against the then complainant, Bakir. Ultimately the Sessions Judge ordered Bakir to be committed for trial on the charge of making a false charge of theft. In the inquiry which preceded the commitment, the learned Judge took the statement of Aliser among others. Aliser has now disappeared, and his evidence could not be obtained in the Court of Session. Therefore, the learned Assistant Judge, by whom this trial was co...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Ganu Bhagade and ors. Vs. Gangadhar Vithal Gulavni and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom100; 37Ind.Cas.299
1. The plaintiffs sue to recover possession of certain lands in the Kolaba District, on the ground that they were entitled so to do by reason of their occupancy tenants having assigned those lands to other persons without permission of the plaintiffs, who were the khots.2. The learned Trial Judge has cited a number of decisions, which establish that alienation by a khoti tenant of his khoti lands in the Kolaba District works as a forfeiture.3. The lower Appellate Court, accepting that custom as established, discusses a counter-custom set up by the defendants to the effect that khoti tenants were entitled to transfer their holdings, and he holds the Custom is not proved.4. The learned Pleader for the appellants argues that although the custom may be established that a khoti tenant cannot transfer his occupancy holding without the permission of his khot, it does not follow that the khot can upon such transfer enter upon the land to the prejudice of the transferee. It may be that the expr...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Jayachand Gujar Vs. Malhari BIn Bapu Bhong
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom397
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff claims as the owner of the land in suit under a sale-deed executed in his favour by the previous owner Achyut in 1887, and as such owner claims possession of the land from the defendant, who, he alleges, became his tenant under a lease of even date with the sale-deed. The defendant's case is that his father, and not the plaintiff, was the purchaser from Achyut; that the plaintiff was the savkar who advanced money, and payment of the interest was secured by the contemporaneous lease. The defendant's case has been substantially held to be established on the facts by concurrent findings of two lower Courts, and we are bound by those findings.2. The question of law, however, has been raised whether this is a suit in which the real intention of the parties to the lease can be investigated under Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act as being a suit for possession of mortgaged property within the meaning of Section 3(y) of that Act. If strictl...
Tag this Judgment!Gautam Jayachand Guar Vs. Malhari Bapu Bhong
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom206(1); 34Ind.Cas.406
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff claims as the owner of the land in suit under a sale-deed executed in his favour by the previous owner Achyut in 1887, and as such owner claims possession of the land from the defendant, who, he alleges, became his tenant under a lease of even date with the sale-deed. The defendant's case is that his father, and not the plaintiff, was the purchaser from Achyut; that the plaintiff was the saokar who advanced money, and payment of the interest was secured by the contemporaneous lease. The defendant's case has been substantially held to be established on the facts by concurrent findings of two lower Courts, and we are bound by those findings.2. The question of law, however, has been raised whether this is a suit in which the real intention of the parties to the lease can be investigated under Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act as being a suit for possession of mortgaged property within the meaning of Section 3(y) of that Act. If strictl...
Tag this Judgment!Chhita Bhula Vs. Bai Jamni Daughter of Bhima Bhula
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom483
Basil Scott, C.J.1. From the year 1894 to 1903 the 1st defendant was a San mortgagee of certain lands mortgaged to him by the plaintiff's father. In 1900, the mortgagor died, and in the following year his widow Kohili for the benefit of those interested in the property took an advance by way of tagavi from the Mamlatdar, and gave a charge upon one of the survey numbers, namely 311, as collateral security for payment of the loan. In June 1903, acting on behalf of herself and the plaintiff, her minor daughter, she executed a mortgage deed with possession in favour of the 1st defendant, and put him in possession of all the property previously charged under the San mortgage including the Survey No. 311. The plaintiff has brought this suit in 1912 to redeem, she being entitled to the benefit of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. The only question in the appeal is with reference to Survey No. 311. That survey number was sold in or about 1906 to satisfy the claim of Government in respe...
Tag this Judgment!Chitta Bhula Vs. Bai Jamni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom108; 37Ind.Cas.295
1. From the year 1894 to 1903 the 1st defendant was a saw-mortgagee of certain lands mortgaged to him by the plaintiff's father In 1900 the mortgagor died, and in the following year his widow Kohili for the benefit of those interested in the property took an advance by way of tagavi from the mamlatdar, and gave a charge upon one of the survey numbers, namely 311, as collateral security for payment of the loan. In June 1903 acting on behalf of herself and the plaintiff, her minor daughter, she executed a mortgage-deed with possession in favour of the 1st defendant, and put him in possession of all the property previously charged under the saw-mortgage including the Survey No. 311. The plaintiff has brought this suit in 1912 to redeem, she being entitled to the benefit of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act.2. The only question in the appeal is with reference to Survey No. 311. That survey number was sold in or about 1906 to satisfy the claim of Government in respect of the tagavi adv...
Tag this Judgment!Bapuji Jagannath Vs. Govindlal Kasandas Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom281; (1916)ILR40Bom439; 34Ind.Cas.167
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit as one of two surviving executors of the will of one Harjivandas Purshottam dated the 15th June 1892. The defendant executor is alleged to be an Audich brahmin of the age of 80, and is charged with having mis-applied the property of the testator, and prayer is that the defendant should be held responsible for all sums of money Which would be found to have been given, or caused to be given, to friends and relations, or proved to have been mismanaged, after taking an account from the year 1899 and onwards, since when he has been in sole management of the property of the late Harjivandas, and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from managing without the consent of the plaintiff and restraining the defendant from preventing the plaintiff from managing. The plaint is a document of some length, and contains no description of the trusts or directions contained in the will of the testator. But the suit may be treated as a gen...
Tag this Judgment!Daluchad Fulchand Gandhi Vs. Gulabbhai Kanthadji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1916
Reported in: 34Ind.Cas.198
Heaton, J.1. The village of Moyad-vas-Rupaji is a talukdari village. The talukdar owner was at one time a minor and the District Court appointed a Government Officer as his guardian, and in consequence of this guardianship the Talukdari Settlement Officer and under him the viamlatdar of the Prantij Taluka had the revenue management of this village, The village was leased to a certain person in consideration of the extinction of certain debts due from the talukdar. The latter part of the period of this lease became vested in one Makhwad Gafoor, and it was during this period that the events with which we are concerned happened. Makhwad maintained that the landholders of the village were paying far too little by way of assessment. The khatedars maintained that they were paying what was customary and all that they could properly be called on to pay. Both sides sent petitions to the mamlatdar, and, on the 20th of March 1911, this officer visited the village in order to find out for himself ...
Tag this Judgment!Pranjiwandas Kalidas and ors. Vs. Shamkorebai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom136; 37Ind.Cas.263
1. We have to construe a deed the purport of which may be briefly summarised thus. There were three brothers, Vasta, Kalidas and Narsi, sons of Kallianji. They were the principal parties to the deed which was executed on the 8th September 1887. The deed provides that the property of the brothers, which is described as joint family property, is divided into three separate lots, one for each brother. There is also a house for residence and some provision for charity, but that is immaterial for the present purpose. The whole property is vested in four trustees out of whom the brothers are three. The object of the trust is thus described:And whereas the said three brothers, Vasta Kallianji, Kalidas Kallianji and Narsi Kallianji, are desirous of apportioning all and singular the said immoveable properties, all of which are of the estimated value of Rs. 64,392, for the benefit and use of themselves jointly during their joint lives, and afterwards for the benefit and use of the survivor of th...
Tag this Judgment!Mohanlal Nagji Vs. Bai Kashi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom66; (1916)ILR40Bom477; 37Ind.Cas.371
Batchelor, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, the applicant being the original plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff was the adopted son of one Nagji Vithal and for an injunction restraining interference by the defendant:2. The suit was originally instituted in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Broach. It so happened that he was the only Subordinate Judge then at Broach, and by him the suit was transferred for hearing to the Second Class Subordinate Judge. It was contended by Mr. Jayakar that as the trial before the Second Class Subordinate Judge was acquiesced in by the plaintiff, the result is the same as if the suit had been filed in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge. That position has not been contested, and I will assume for the purposes of my judgment that this part of Mr. Jayakar's argument is unassailable.3. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff, and that decree ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »