Mumbai Court June 1916 Judgments
Gokaldas Motiram Surti Vs. Partab Kabhai Barot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom198; (1916)18BOMLR693; 35Ind.Cas.871
Batchelor, J.1. The house in suit belonged to one Damodar whose neighbour on the North was the 1st defendant and on the South the plaintiff. Damodar sold the house to the Ist defendant who subsequently sold it to the 2nd defendant. The parties are Hindus of Godhra. The plaintiff brought this suit on the footing that he was entitled to pre-empt one-half of the house, and, therefore, he prayed for possession of one-half of it on payment of a sum of Rs. 462-8-0.2. It has been held by the lower Courts that Hindus in Godhra are governed by the doctrine of pre-emption and that finding must now be accepted. The plaintiff's suit has been dismissed by the District Judge as the learned Judge was of opinion that it was not lawful for one person to pre-empt a fraction of the property in controversy.3. Mr. Ratanlal, who appears for the plaintiff in this appeal, has urged that the learned District Judge is wrong in this view of the Mahomedan law of pre-emption, and in support of this contention has ...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Radha Kumvar Vs. Thakur Reoti Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR850
Buckmaster, J.1. It is always to be regretted when an appeal is disposed of on a preliminary point, and the parties are compelled, after having incurred considerable expense, to leave this Board without a determination of the real merits of their dispute. But in this case their Lordships feel that they have no choice in the matter, and that they are bound to advise His Majesty that the preliminary point raised must prevail.2. The facts of this case are these : In 1884 a mortgage was executed of certain property for a sum of 2,000 rupees, with interest at 12 percent. On the 30th November, 1909, the persons who were entitled to the benefit of that mortgage took proceedings in order to have it enforced. They claimed that the amount due upon the mortgage was 38,494 rupees, and they asked for an order for payment of that sum. against the defendants, and a sale of the property. They made, as parties to that suit, not merely the people who claimed under the mortgagors, but also certain people...
Tag this Judgment!A.J.S. Joseph Vs. the Corporation of Calcutta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR878
Chancellor, J.1. In this case the appellants are the owners of a bazaar in Kidderpur, which abuts upon two public streets known as Garden Reach Road and Diamond Harbour Road respectively. Along the frontages of these streets there are a number of verandahs or shops connected with the main buildings and erected upon culverts or platforms placed over drains which run by the side of the roads. The streets and drains are vested in the respondents as the Corporation of Calcutta, and they, on the 13th July, 1905, and the 21st April, 1908, served notices (under Section 341 of the Calcutta Municipal Act of 1899 ) upon the appellants, requiring the removal of these fixtures in Diamond Harbour Road and Garden Reach Road respectively. The provisions of Section 341, so far as it affects service of the notices, is not material, but it contains, in Sub-section 3, certain provisions material to this dispute, which are in these terms :-if the owner or occupier of the building proves that any such fixt...
Tag this Judgment!Fateh Chand Vs. Pandit Rup Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR900
Shaw, J.1. In these consolidated appeals it has been admitted in the argument submitted to the Board by the counsel for the appellant that substantially only one question falls now to be determined. That question has reference to the construction of a will dated the 18th September, 1901, of one Musammat Gomti Kunwar. In that document there is a description of the title of the testatrix given in the following words : ' I am the sole owner in possession of his ' [her husband's] ' entire estate and possess all the proprietary powers.' Their Lordships note that throughout this will the term thus translated ' sole owner in possession ' or ' owner in possession ' ' is ' malik-o-qabiz.'2. Having thus described the property she proceeds to bequeath ' the entire estate of my husband to Fateh Chand.'' There is, however, appended to this bequest of the entire estate the subjection of the whole of the estate ' to the following conditions,' and a covenant in writing by herself that she would abide ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mukundrai Atmaram Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom122; 37Ind.Cas.489
1. The District Magistrate in issuing this sweeping public prohibition has omitted to refer to any provision of law as authorising such an order. We are, therefore, left to guess under what authority he conceived himself to be acting, and upon this reference there is no appearance before us in support of the order. For the reasons given in the careful letter of reference by the Sessions Judge, Mr. Taleyar Khan, we are of opinion that the order in question is wholly without jurisdiction. We, therefore, set it aside....
Tag this Judgment!Ramdas Vithaldas Durbar Vs. Chhaganlal Pitamber and S. Ameerchand and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR670
Parker, J.1. The question which arises on these appeals is whether a railway receipt issued to the consignor of goods in the form appearing on pp. 70 and 71 of the record is ' an instrument of title ' within the meaning of Section 103 of the Indian Contract Act.2. Section 103 of this Act is one of a group of sections relating to a seller's right to stop goods while they are in transit to the buyer. Section 99 defines the right. Section 100 provides that goods shall be deemed to be in transit while in course of transmission to and not yet come into the possession of the buyer. Section 101 lays it down that the right does not, except in the cases thereinafter mentioned, cease on the buyers reselling the goods while in transit and receiving the price, but continues until the goods have been delivered to the second buyer or to some one on his behalf. Section 102 provides that the right of stoppage ceases if the buyer, having obtained a bill of lading or other ' document showing title' to t...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Sri Ram Chandra Bhanj Deo Vs. the Secretary of State for Indi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR838
Parker, J.1. This was an action in which the appellant, as plaintiff, sought to recover possession from the first and second defendants of a jaghir containing about 26 bighas of land situate within the territorial limits of the Pergunnah Nayabasan in the district of Midnapur, of which the appellant was the proprietor. The Secretary of State who alone has appeared as a respondent in this appeal, and is hereafter referred to as the respondent, was added as a third defendant because the Government of India disputed the right which the appellant was asserting in the action. The appellant's case was that in 1898 one Suba Naek was in his personal service and held the jahgir on service tenure determinate when his employment ceased; that he had duly determined the employment of Suba Naik and given him notice to quit his jahgir; that Suba Naik had refused to deliver up possession of the jahgir, and had obtained from the Magistrate an order which precluded the appellant from obtaining possession...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrika Bakhsh Singh Vs. Raja Indar Bakram Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR846
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 25th May, 1911, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which reversed a decree dated the 3rd January, 1910, of the Subordinate Judge of Barabanki and dismissed the suit with costs.2. The facts necessary for the decision of this appeal may be briefly stated, The dispute relates to the appellant's title to an Oudh taluka, known as Mahgawan, which was an impartible estate. The parties are Hindus, subject to the law of the Mitakshara. On the 13th December, 1904, Babuain Maharaj Rani, who held Mahgawan for a Hindu widow's interest, made, by a deed of gift, an absolute transfer of Mahgawan to the appellant, and he obtained possession. To that transfer Mahabir Singh and his younger brother, Bechu Singh, were consenting parties. At the time of the transfer Mahabir Singh was the heir to Mahgawan expectant on the death of Babuain Maharaj Rani, and the appellant is his only son. Upon the transfer to him the appellant applied t...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Diwali Vs. Umedbhai Bhulabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR773; 36Ind.Cas.564
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In 1896, Kalidas Haribhai, father of the first two defendants, purported to mortgage to Ranchhod Madhdas, whose representative the 3rd defendant now is, an unrecognised share of a bhag or the narva, contrary to the provisions of the Bhagdari Act. Such mortgage by reason of those provisions was void ab initio. The mortgage-deed provided that after possession by the mortgagee for eleven years the mortgage amount was to be paid to him whenever he should demand it either out of property or by the mortgagor or his heirs personally. Ranchhod under the professed mortgage obtained possession of the land, and subsequently his rights under the mortgage claim were sold and purchased by the plaintiff at a Court-sale.2. In 1910, the plaintiff filed a suit against the representative of Ranchhod and also against the representatives of the professed mortgagor to obtain possession from the representative of Ranchhod of the property then in his possession. No claim was made in t...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavrao Hariharrao Vs. Anusuyabai Eknath Jape
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom273; (1916)18BOMLR768; 36Ind.Cas.505
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff alleged that he was the saranjamdar of the ancestral saranjam village of Janu where the lands in question were situate; that the lands were given to the defendants' ancestor on tenure in consideration of rendering certain shetsanadi services and that the lands continued in the defendants' possession by virtue of that tenure; and that the defendants had no longer been rendering any service, and did not deliver possession of the lands though called upon to do so, and he prayed for possession of the lands. In the alternative he alleged that if it should be held that the defendants were not holding under a service tenure, he as saranjamdar was entitled to recover the assessment of the lands, and prayed for a declaration establishing his right to levy the assessment on the ground that he no longer wished to continue the land in inam with the defendants.2. According to the plaint this is a hereditary saranjam village. Saranjams are held subject to the s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »