Mumbai Court October 1917 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.
Emperor Vs. Abdul Hamid Rajabali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR114
Heaton, J.1. In this case certain persons were convicted under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code for disobeying an order promulgated by the District Magistrate of Kanara under Section 44 of the Bombay District Police Act. The order had reference to the ensuing Laxmi worship and Kartik festivals and it provided as follows :-'No one shall obstruct religious or ceremonial processions passing with music in front of any Masjid within the municipal limits of the Halyal town.' The accused did in fact obstruct a Hindu procession passing a mosque with music. It has, therefore, been found that they disobeyed a lawful order and therefore are guilty of an offence under Section 188, and the Sessions Judge in appeal upheld these convictions, The applicants have come to us in revision.2. On reading the judgments of the lower Courts I think that they found with unmistakable clearness that there was an obstruction of the procession and therefore disobedience of the order. It has been contended that ...
H.H. Mir Abdul HussaIn Khan Vs. Mussammat Bibi Sona Dero
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR528
Buckmaster, J.1. On the 30th January, 1907, Mir Hussein Ali Khan of Talpur died intestate, leaving neither widow nor child. His nearest surviving relations were the plaintiff, Abdul Hussein, the son of his brother by the half-blood, one sister, the first defendant upon the record, and his sister's son, who is the second defendant. His estate, consisting exclusively of personal property, and largely of what we should call personal effects, is of great value, and doubtless also, from the character of many of the articles, of great personal interest to his relations. It is a dispute about the inheritance of this property that has given rise to the present appeal. The deceased was a member of the family of Talpur Mirs of Sind, who were a branch of the large Baluchi tribe. He was a Mahomedan, and, if Mahomedan law governed the question, the rights of the parties would vary accordingly whether the deceased was a member of the Shia or of the Sunni sect. If the former, the sister would inherit...
Anant Ram Vs. the Collector of Etah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR524
Buckmaster, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is as to the rights of certain mortgagees under and in respect of a mortgage which was dated the 4th September, 1894. That mortgage was executed by one Raja Sheoraj Singh, the manager of certain joint property held by himself and his brother, Maharaj Singh, and governed by the Mitakshara law. The mortgage was for the sum of 3,000 rupees, with interest at the rate of 1 rupee 2 annas per cent, per month, with compound interest and half-yearly rests. The mortgage affects three villages, and on the face of it there is a recital that the money was lent in order that the mortgagor might pay the Government revenue. The original mortgagee is dead, and his representatives instituted the proceedings out oil which this appeal has arisen for the purpose of enforcing their rights under the mortgage deed. A considerable number of defences were raised by the different parties who were made defendants to those proceedings, but for the purpose of the ...
Sri Sethuramaswamiar Vs. Sri Meruswamiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR514
Walter Phillimore, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is the younger brother of the first defendant, and the nature of his claim is twofold.2. He alleged, first, that there were certain joint family properties, of which the first defendant had been manager, and of which he now desired his share.3. Secondly, that there were certain properties devoted to charitable and religious purposes, and therefore not available for division, in the management of which he was entitled to share, and for which he desired that there should be a scheme of management settled by the Court.4. The second defendant is another younger brother having the same interest as the plaintiff; and the other defendants are widows entitled to allowances during their lives.5. The properties, both non-religious and religious, were granted at various times by the then Rajah of Tanjore to the ancestor of the parties, one Setubavaswami. They descended to his son, and that son, having no natural children, to an adopted son, and t...
Saudagar Singh Vs. Pardip Narayan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR509
Parker, J.1. Their Lordships do not consider it necessary to call upon counsel for the respondents in this appeal.2. The question is a very short one. It appears that the High Court from which the appeal has been brought has made a certain declaration. There is absolutely no ground for saying that that declaration is in any way erroneous, nor has counsel for the appellant suggested any error. The point is simply whether, under the practice prevalent in India, such a declaration ought to have been made. In order to show that no declaration ought to have been made, reference has been made to various cases, and in particular to the case of Janaki Ammal v. Narayanaswami Aiyar (1916) L.R. 43 IndAp 307 : 18 Bom. L.R. 856 The point of that case is this : There was a Hindu widow entitled to an estate, and a suit was brought by a person, presumptively entitled as heir after her death, to prevent waste. It was held that there was no waste at all, and the question arose whether, under those circu...
Rai Bhaiya Dirgaj Deo Bahadur Vs. Beni Mahto
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR712
Parker, J.1. In this case the question is as to the nature of the respondents' holding. It is admitted that the document under which their predecessor in title originally held, and which created the holding, is lost, and the only question that their Lordships have to decide is whether another document consisting of a register, as evidence of the contents, was or was not properly admitted. Now clearly this register is an official document, and therefore it is admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. It may be possible that in the case of such a document, if it could be shown that any particular part was in excess of the official duty by reason of which it came into existence, that part might not be admissible, but no attempt has been made to show this in the present case. The document reason to reverse or to vary that decision.2. The appeal therefore should, in their Lordships' opinion, be dismissed. The respondents not having has been admitted by both Courts ...
In Re: Edulji Limjibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom60; (1917)19BOMLR910; 43Ind.Cas.328
Heaton, J.1. This is a case in which the District Magistrate, in the exercise of his revisional powers under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has directed further inquiry into the case of two accused persons who were discharged by the Second Class Magistrate. I am not surprised to find that in this case the District Magistrate did order further inquiry, because to me the judgment of the Second Class Magistrate is very unconvincing. But the case itself seems to be one of no great importance. There was a dispute between the accused on one side and the complainant and possibly people behind him on the other. It was a dispute which apparently touches the rights to land and is therefore likely to continue, though it is to be hoped that it will not continue in the form of either party assaulting the other. In this case there was, it is true an allegation that the accused intended to steal some cotton. That, however, seems to be based on very flimsy material and for practical pu...
In Re: Parvatrao Mhaskojirao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom7; (1918)20BOMLR108
Heaton, J.1. This application raises a point of difficulty about which there has been-and perhaps is likely to be-difference of opinion. A sanction to prosecute was given under Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code and an appeal against the sanction was made to the superior Court and that appeal was dismissed. Then the applicant approached the High Court in its revisional powers asking it to interfere with the sanction and the High Court summarily rejected the application. Originally the sanction had been given on the 23rd of July 1916 and the order of the High Court was made on the 1st of February 1917. By this time therefore more than six months had elapsed since the date when the sanction was given by the original Court. But a further delay ensued. It was not until the 10th of July 1917, more than six months after the order of the appellate Court confirming the sanction and more than five months after the High Court had refused to interfere, that the complaint was presented to ...
Emperor Vs. Bai Samrath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR106
Heaton, J.1. We think that this is quite plainly a bad conviction. The accused, who, according to the facts found, is one of two joint owners of a shop, put her lock on the shop. Without her agreement the other joint owner had leased the shop to the complainant; and the complainant has accused the present applicant that she has wrongfully restrained him because she has put her lock on to the shop and thereby prevented him from entering the shop.2. There are two observations I should like to make on this case. The first is that even if the action of the applicant could be construed as coming within any of the penal provisions of the Penal Code, yet the matter in dispute is so plainly a civil dispute that I think any Magistrate would have been not only justified but would have been acting in a very desirable way, had he dismissed such a complaint as being an abuse of the process of a criminal Court. But on the facts here proved it cannot, it seems to me-and this is my second observation-...
Somashastri Vishwanath Shastri Kashikar Vs. Swamirao Kashinath Nadgir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.482
Beaman, J.1. The point raised in this appeal is certainly one of considerable difficulty, that is to say, it is very difficult to find any definite and well-known principle of law upon which to base a decision which the facts and justice of the case most certainly demand. The point arises thus:One Krishnaji owned a considerable estate. In 1878 he gave a portion of that estate paying judi to Government to the husband of his daughter. The deed of gift expressed that the donor intended it to be free of judi, that is to say, that he undertook to pay the Government judi which would otherwise have had to be paid by the owner of this parcel of land. About this there is no dispute. In 1902, the donor, then being an old man, made a gift of the residue of all his real estate to one Bisto out of gratitude for services rendered, and this gift contains special reference to the previous gift of 1878 and enjoined the donee to act according to that gift. Again it is common ground that Bisto, the donee...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »