Mumbai Court August 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.
Raoji Fakira Vs. Dagdu Hanmata Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom166; (1916)18BOMLR779; 36Ind.Cas.562
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the lower appellate Court was right in its view that it is competent to the civil Court to grant a declaration that the plaintiffs are Vatandars of a Mharki Vatan. In our opinion the lower appellate Court was right. It is conceded that, as numerous decided cases show, no objection could be offered to the civil Court's making such a declaration in the case of plaintiffs claiming to be Vatandars of a Kulkarniki or a Patilki Vatan. But it is urged on behalf of the present appellants that the same rule does not hold in regard to the Mharki Vatan, and the reason is' that the Kulkarniki and the Patilki Vatans are regulated by Sections 25 and 36,, of the Hereditary Offices Act, which sections, occurring in Part VI of the Act, do not apply to the case of a Mharki Vatan. This kind of Vatan, proceeds the argument, is governed by Sections 63 and 64 which constitute Part X of the Act, and by Section 64 it is pr...
Emperor Vs. Sardarkhan Jaridkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR793; 36Ind.Cas.578
Beaman, J.1. The accused's father had a quarrel with the deceased as a result of which the deceased was discharged from the mill. The evidence is that he entered the mill after this and threatened the accused, who is a young man of about seventeen or eighteen. The accused appears to have lost his temper, rushed out and brought two sticks one of which he gave to the accused No. 2, who is seven years older than accused No. 1 and who resides with him and his father. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 immediately went out with the object of driving the deceased off the mill premises as they say, or, as is implied in the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, assaulting him. Unfortunately, the two accused came upon the deceased sitting with his back towards them just outside the weaving shed, and the evidence is that the accused, being armed with a stick about three feet long having iron rings and about an inch in diameter, suddenly struck the deceased a violent blow on the back of the head which, as the...
Krishna Kerring and Co. and Vs. J.R. Miller
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR41Bom631
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Ag. C.J.1. This is an application to extend the time for the prosecution of the appellant in respect of an offence of giving false evidence said to have been committed daring the hearing of a suit before Mr. Justice Beaman. Sanction was granted under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the 6th December 1915, and by virtue of Sub-section (6) of that section, the sanction could not remain in force for more than six months from the date on which it was given. Consequently the period of the currency of the sanction has expired several months ago. It is, I think, clear that if we have the power now to extend the time, we ought to extend it, seeing that the responsibility for the delay which has occurred does not rest with the present respondent, but with the appellant himself. But it is contended that, under Section 195, it is not competent to this Court to make an order extending the period, when in fact the six months' time has elapsed. When that time has...
Laxmibai Vs. Husainbhai Ahmedbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom181; (1916)18BOMLR798; 36Ind.Cas.618
Macleod, J.1. In this suit a decretal order of reference to Commissioner was made on the 7th November 1913 to take I he following accounts, viz., an account of what was due by the plaintiffs to the defendant for principal and interest on the mortgage mentioned in the pleadings on the basis of the findings on the issues therein from 23rd October 1880 and it was directed that in such account the defendant should be debited with all the rents and profits accrued from the property mentioned in the pleadings and the sale proceeds of any machinery or building materials sold by him and be given credit for all costs and expenses properly incurred by him in maintaining the said property or working the said mills.2. The first defendant died after the said order was made and the present 6th and 7th defendants are the Receivers appointed in Suit No. 936 of 1914 for administration of the estate. The Receivers brought in an account of the mortgage debt and filed it before the Commissioner. The accou...
Laxmibai and ors. Vs. Hussainbhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1916
Reported in: (1917)ILR41Bom719
Macleod, J.1. In this suit a decretal order of reference to Commissioner was made on the 7th November 1913 to take the following accounts, viz., an account of what was due by the plaintiffs to the defendant for principal and interest on the mortgage mentioned in the pleadings on the basis of the findings on the issues therein from 23rd October 1880 and it was directed that in such account the defendant should be debited with all the rents and profits accrued from the property mentioned in the pleadings and the sale proceeds of any machinery or building materials sold by him and be given credit for all costs and expenses properly incurred by him in maintaining the said property or working the said mills.2. The first defendant died after the said order was made and the present 6th and 7th defendants are the Receivers appointed in Suit No. 936 of 1914 for administration of the estate. The Receivers brought in an account of the mortgage debt and filed it before the Commissioner., The accou...
Ramchandra Dhondo Kulkarni Vs. Malkapa Narsapa Devare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR757; 36Ind.Cas.443
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The facts in this second appeal are somewhat complicated, but we propose to refer only to such of them as are necessary for the decision of the point with which we are now concerned. The original owner of this property was the 1st defendant Devare. In 1883, during the minority of Devare, his mother purported to sell it to the Bhojes, from whom Bavchi, in 1890, received it in exchange for another parcel of land. In 1891, by a simple mortgage Bavchi mortgaged the property to the present plaintiff, who is the appellant before us. In 1898, a suit was brought by Devare against his mother, Bavchi and the Bhojes, in order to set aside the sale by Devare's mother to the Bhojes. That suit was successful, and the result was that the sale to the Bhojes was set aside. In 1901, the plaintiff obtained a decree on his mortgage against Bavchi and the others. The property was put to sale and was purchased by the plaintiff with permission. But when the plaintiff pro...
In Re: Rama Bapu Pujari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom221; (1916)18BOMLR683; 35Ind.Cas.825
Beaman, J.1. The man for whom the two applicants stood sureties was to have been tried on the 24th. He was found dead on the 19th. No one knows the date of his death. But both Magistrates are of opinion that the cause was suicide. We see no reason to conclude that he must necessarily have died after the 19th. There is a medical affidavit to the contrary and the District Magistrate most certainly ought to have given careful attention to this point. But in any event we can find no sufficient ground for penalizing the sureties in a case of this kind. Even if the accused person had only committed suicide on the 19th or the 20th it is clear that he must have had that act in contemplation, and that was the only reason why he did not present himself for trial. To call in surety-bonds in circumstances of that kind appears to us to evidence a complete lack of discretion, and we think it might also tend to bring our administration on that point into general disrepute. Surely the object of these ...
Vinayakrao Balasaheb Inamdar Vs. Shamrao Vithal Kalkundri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR708; 36Ind.Cas.72
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the lower Court, brought this suit as a suit for redemption under the Dakkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The mortgage to be redeemed was said to be that executed by the plaintiffs' father in 1894. In 1899the mortgagee sued the mortgagor for recovery of the mortgage debt and for sale of the property. In March, 1900, there was a consent decree by which a new sum was taken as the capitalized principal, interest was allowed at 7 per cent., and provision was made for payment of the money by certain instalments. The security under this arrangement differed in some particulars from the security of the earlier mortgage, and notably Survey No. 50, which was included in the older mortgage, was excluded from the purview of the consent decree, On the same day as this consent decree was obtained, Survey No. 50 was sold by the mortgagor to the mortgagee for Rs. 1,000. In 1903, the mortgagee, on his application for exec...
Babu Ganesh Deshmukh Vs. Sitakam Martand Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom158; (1916)18BOMLR751; 36Ind.Cas.439
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The appellants before us are Babu and Dattatraya, sons of the original defendant in the suit, Ganesh Vaman Deshmukh. Babu is of full age, but Dattatraya is an infant. Babu attained his majority on the 3rd May 1913. On the 22nd May of the same year, his father Ganesh died. On the 3rd July 1913, the trial Court delivered judgment against the original defendant.2. The appeal in the District Court was filed on the and October, and is admittedly on the face of things about fifty days late. The question before us is whether there are materials which would justify us in disturbing the District Judge's order refusing under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to excuse the delay in the presentation of the appeal. Section 5 prescribes that an appeal may be admitted after the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation when the appellant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal within the period. The question whether suffic...
Kashinath Krishna Joshi Vs. Dhondshet Bhawanshet Shetye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom138; (1916)18BOMLR786
Beaman, J.1. We have had a very full and interesting argument upon the two points raised in this appeal, viz., whether, the plaintiff's contention, which succeeded in the Courts below, is not res judicata against him, and whether his prayer to have the sale of 1912 set aside is not time-barred.2. We are of opinion that this is not a case of an alleged res judicata against a Statute, and we are therefore not called upon to examine certain cases which have been cited to us and which, on a first view, may appear to be in conflict. What we think clearly was res judicata here was the question of fact raised again by the plaintiff in this suit and decided in his favour, viz., whether or not the lands sold at the Court-sale of 1912 were occupancy lands within the prohibition of Section 9 of the Khoti Settlement Act. That was a point which the plaintiff, if he meant to rely upon it at all, was bound to take, we think, at the time the Court proposed to sell the land in suit. It is not as though...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »