Mumbai Court March 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.
Nabibhai Vazirbhai Vs. Dayabhai Amulakh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1916
Reported in: 36Ind.Cas.369
Stanley Batchlor, J.1. The present application is made by the judgment-debtor who was the 4th defendant in the suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs to recover upon two documents, and the Court in which the suit was instituted was the Court of Kalol in the territories of His Highness the Gaekwar of Baroda. There a decree was passed in the plaintiffs' favour, and ultimately the plaintiffs applied that this decree should be transferred for execution to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad. That transfer was accordingly made, and the darkhast has been heard by the learned Subordinate Judge of the first class.2. The only one of his findings with which we are now concerned is the finding that the execution of this decree is not barred by time. That finding is challenged by Mr. Thakor on behalf of the present, applicant, and it seems to me that Mr. Thakor's contention must be allowed.3. There is some uncertainty as to what the law of limitation is in Baroda with regard to the...
Gangaram Valad Ganpati Bhopale Vs. Laxman Ganoba Shet Chandole
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1916
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom498
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that a certain immoveable property belonged to him and for a decree that possession of the same should be delivered to him by the defendant. He bases his title upon a purchase of the properties in question from Narayan Gunpati. on the 5th of December 1911. It has been held by the lower appellate Court that prior to this date the plaintiff had notice of the execution of a contract for the sale of the same property by Narayan to the defendant. The defendant contends that he has paid to Narayana portion of the purchase money agreed upon and that the balance was to be paid after the sale deed was passed. It is found by the tower appellate Court that nearly half of the purchase moneys was in fact received by Narayan from the defendant under the contract of sale.2. The question is whether the defendant has a good defence to a suit by a purchaser from Narayan who can rely upon a registered sale deed and whether he can, notwithstanding t...
Gangaram Ganpati Bhopale Vs. Laxman Ganoba Shet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom95; 37Ind.Cas.360
1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that a certain immoveable property belonged to him and for a decree that possession of the same should be delivered to him by the defendant. He bases his title upon a purchase of the properties in question from Narayen Ganpati on the 5th of December 1911. It has been held by the lower Appellate Court that prior to this date the plaintiff had notice of the execution of a contract for the sale of the same property by Narayen to the defendant. The defendant contends that he has paid to Narayen portion of the purchase-money agreed upon and that the balance was to be paid after the sale-deed was passed. It is found by the lower Appellate Court that nearly half of the purchase-money was in fact received by Narayen from the defendant under the contract of sale.2. The question is whether the defendant has a good defence to a suit by a purchaser from Narayen who can rely upon a registered sale-deed and whether he can, notwithstanding the sale-deed, retain...
Anna Laxman Bhintade Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom220; 34Ind.Cas.973
Batchelor, J.1. In this case the applicant has been convicted, under Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code, of the offence of maiming a mare.2. The maiming alleged consists in this that nearly one-half of one ear of the mare was cut off by the applicant. There is no suggestion that the animal's sense of hearing has been impaired. The question is, whether such an injury amounts to maiming within the meaning of Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code. Having regard to the position of the word maiming' in that section, where it occurs in conjunction with the words 'killing, poisoning or rendering useless,' I am disposed to think that the maiming' of the section implies some permanent disability inflicted on the animal. I do not seek to give an exhaustive definition of the word maiming.' But it appears to me that involved in the word is the notion of the privation of the use of some limb or member involving a permanent injury, and not a mere disfigurement. That view is, I think, in accordance ...
Basangavda Channappagavda Vs. Gangava Kummangavda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom105; 37Ind.Cas.291
1. The plaintiff, who is the mother of the last male holder of property admittedly vatan, having been postponed in the succession to the defendant as the nearest male member of the vatandar family, under Section 2 of Bom. Act V of 1886, has brought this suit to recover maintenance on the ground that she as the widow of a deceased male holder is entitled to maintenance from that holder's successors. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that service and uncurtailed remuneration must go hand in hand unless the service incumbent on the hereditary office has been commuted, and that even if the property-had been the subject of the Gordon Settlement, it would not affect the incidents of vatan property unless it were shown that such incidents had been expressly altered or cancelled.2. The lower Appellate Court, being of opinion that the property must, for reasons stated, be taken to have been the subject of the Gordon Settlement, allowed the plaintiff's claim on the ground ...
Gurappa Shivgenappa Putti Vs. Tayawa Shiddappa Kalasannavar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom202(2); (1916)ILR40Bom513
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Assistant Judge of Belgaum pronounced in an application made under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The application was by the present appellant, who is the father of the minor concerned, a young widow named Savitribai, aged about 16 or 17. The application was that the appellant should be appointed guardian of her person and property.2. The petition was made on the footing that certain property left on the death of the widow's husband's father, named Shidappa, was Shidappa's separate property. The opponents contended, on the other hand, that this property was joint property between Shidappa and his brother. The question, therefore, was raised in the lower Court whether the property was in fact the separate property of Shidappa or was joint family property, and the learned Judge below embarked upon a long and laborious enquiry upon this question. In the end he came to the conclusion adverse to the petitioner, hold...
Gurappa Shivgenappa Putti Vs. Tayawa Shidappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1916
Reported in: 35Ind.Cas.16
Batchelor, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Assistant Judge of Belgaum pronounced in an application made under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The application was by the present appellant, who is the father of the minor concerned, a young widow named Savitribai, aged about 16 or 17. The application was that the appellant should be appointed guardian of her person and property.2. The petition was made on the footing that certain property left on the death of the widow's husband's father, named Shidappa, was Shidappa's separate property. The opponents contended, on the other hand, that this, property was joint property between Shidappa and his brother. The question therefore, was raised in the lower Court whether the property was in fact the separates property of Shidappa or was joint family; property, and the learned Judge below embarked upon a long and laborious enquiry upon this question. In the end he came to the conclusion adverse to the petitioner, ho...
S.M.K.R. Meyappa Chetty Vs. S.N. Supramanian Chetty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR642
Parker, J.1. The facts of this case are not in dispute. S. A. Supramanian Chetty, a native of and domiciled in British India ( hereinafter referred to as 'the testator'), carried on for some' years prior to his death a money-lending business in Singapore in the Straits Settlements in co-partnership with the respondent. He died on November 11, 1904, having by his will appointed S. K. M. Ramasamy Chetty and another to be his executors. Caveats were entered against the proof of this will, and in August, 1907, S. R. M. Ramasamy Chetty (his co-executor having renounced probate) presented a petition in the Court of the District Judge of Madura in the Madras Presidency, propounding the will in solemn form. Ultimately, after protracted litigation, the High Court of Judicature at Madras ordered the District Judge at Madura to grant probate of the will to S. R. M. Ramasamy Chetty, and such probate was on March 10, 1912, granted accordingly. An appeal from the order of the High Court of Judicatur...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›