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.
Panachand Chhotalal Vs. Manoharlal Nandlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom155; (1918)20BOMLR1; 43Ind.Cas.729
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, ought this suit as the heir of one Dolat Hirachand to recover three lots of properties. He was resisted by the 1st defendant Goswami Nandlal Vanmalilal, a religious preceptor, who claimed the properties for himself, pleading that lots Nos. 1 and 2 had been given to him by Dolat's widovr Jekore by a deed of gift dated the 12th of October 1891, the gift being for the religious purpose of the installation of an idol, and pleading as regards lot No. 3 that it had been orally given to him by Jekore about a month after the deed of gift.2. The learned Judge below has held against the alleged oral gift, but he has held in favour of the deed of gift of October 1891. At the same time the learned Judge says that the deed ' of gift refers only to lot No. 1, so that in the learned Judge's view the plaintiff was entitled to lots 2 and 3. There are no cross-objections to the Judge's decree, and the only question, the...
Vishnu Narayan Vaidya Vs. the District Deputy Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Bom245; (1918)ILR42Bom100; 43Ind.Cas.480
Beaman, J.1. The Government Pleader raised a preliminary point that no appeal lay. He relied on the terms of Section 21 and argued that the enumerated sections of the Land Acquisition Act exclude, and designedly exclude, Sections 53 and 54 which sections confer the right of appeal. On a careful consideration of the scheme of the Act as a whole, we are of opinion that the answer to this question depends upon whether the case before us falls properly within Section 10, and if so, whether the terms of that section are in any wise affected or controlled by the enumeration of certain sections of the Land Acquisition Act in Section 21. There is no doubt but that the case before us is a case of acquisition under Section 10. Where that is so, the mode of ascertaining the value of the property acquired is that of the Land Acquisition Act without any qualification whatever. The whole of the Act, therefore, appears to us to be imported by reference in dealing with cases of acquisition under Secti...
Somashastri Vishwanathshastri Kashikar Vs. Swamirao Kashinath Nadgir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom55; (1918)ILR42Bom93
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 the 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 ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›