Mumbai Court December 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.
Janardan Ganesh Khadilkar Vs. Ravji Bhikaji Kondkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom193; (1918)20BOMLR398; 45Ind.Cas.448
Beaman, J.1. Assuming (but without deciding) that Mr. Jinnah'a contention is sound, viz., that the plaintiff could not have acquired the right which he is suing to enforce, under the Indian Easements Act, still the case is saved by Section 2, Clause (c) of that Act,2. The lower Courts have found concurrently, as a fact, that the plaintiff has acquired this right and enjoyed it from time immemorial.3. Even if it were a right that could not be acquired as an easement, there is nothing intrinsically unreasonable in it. On the contrary it is compatible with the usages and sentiments of the agricultural population in many parts of India. In my opinion the decree of the Court below must be confirmed and this appeal dismissed with all costs upon the appellants.Marten, J.4. This second appeal raises an interesting question as to water rights which has been decided in plaintiff's favour in both the Courts below. The facts proved show that from time immemorial the plaintiff and his ancestors as ...
Dwarkanath Rai Mohan Chaudhuri Vs. the Rivers Steam Navigation Company ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR735
Walter Phillimore, J.1. These are consolidated appeals in two actions brought in the High Court of Judicature of Calcutta. The appellants are the plaintiffs.2. They brought their action in respect of two parcels of jute laden on board the flat 'Jattrapore' for carriage from Bera to Euthtolla Ghat at Calcutta, on the terms of certain bills of lading, and they sued in respect of a loss of the jute by fire. The general outline of the facts in the case is as follows:-The flat proceeded to her destination at Ruthtolla Ghat; but when she reached her discharging berth the consignees wore not ready to take delivery.3. There was a dispute upon this subject in the Courts below the plaintiffs complaining that they had been prevented from taking delivery. But this issue was found against them, and the decision on this point has not been questioned before this Board.4. The flat with other cargo on board was then taken further down the Hooghly, and ultimately moored head and stern to two buoys, near...
Janardan Ganesh Khadilkar and anr. Vs. Ravji Bhikaji Kondkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1917
Reported in: 45Ind.Cas.448
Beaman, J.1. Assuming (but without deciding) that Mr. Jinnah's contention is sound, viz., that the plaintiff could not have acquired the right which he is suing to enforce under the Indian Easements Act, still the case is saved by Section 2, Clause (c), of that Act.2. The lower Courts have found concurrently, as a fact, that the plaintiff has acquired this right and enjoyed it from time immemorial.3. Even if it were a right that could not be acquired as an easement, there is nothing intrinsically unreasonable in it. On the contrary it is compatible with the usages and sentiments of the agricultural population in many parts of India. In my opinion the decree of the Court below must be confirmed and this appeal dismissed with all costs upon the appellants.Marten, J.4. This second appeal raises an interesting question as to water rights which has been decided in plaintiff's favour in both the Courts below. The facts proved show that from time immemorial the plaintiff and his ancestors as ...
Balkrishna Sumbhaji Ghate Vs. Dattatraya Mahadev Ghate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Bom144; (1918)20BOMLR325; 45Ind.Cas.580
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to have it declared that he was the owner of a ten pies share out of a one anna eight pies share, and a still larger share standing in the name of the defendant in the Kulkarni Vatan of the village of Mutat. The share was in land revenue assigned for the purpose of supporting the office of Kulkarni. Section 4 of the Pensions Act provides that no civil Court shall entertain any suit relating to any grant of land revenue conferred or made by the British or any former Government, whatever may have been the consideration for any such pension or grant, and whatever may have been the nature of the payment, claim or right for which such pension or grant may have been substituted.2. The applicability of this section to cases of the description which we now have before us has been considered in various reported judgments of this Court, notably in Babaji Hari v. Rajaram Ballah I.L.R. (1875) Bom. 75 and Dwarkanath v. Mahadev : (1912)14BOMLR938 . Both ju...
irshad Ali Vs. Musammat Kariman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR790
Buckmaster, J. 1. The question in this case is one that is easy to state and difficult to answer : Was the respondent, Musaimnat Kariman, the wife of Syed Ali, who died on the 14th July, 1909. and are her three children, the respondents, Yar Ali, Musaimnat Akbari, and Musammat Asghari, his legitimate offspring The Subordinate Judge before whom the case was heard decided in the negative, but his judgment was reversed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, which affirmed the claims of Kariman and her children. The consideration of the case has been rendered more difficult by the fact that some of the verbal evidence, and particularly that of Kariman herself, is untrustworthy, while the documents record a state of affairs which it is often hard to reconcile with probabilities ; but conjecture as to what may have led to a particular course of action is an uncertain guide and one liable to lead astray. Unless the facts evidenced by documentary and oral testimony are so much at v...
C. Ganapathy Mudaliar Vs. N. Krishnamachariar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR580
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Madras, dated the 17th February, 1914, which affirmed a decree, dated the 9th February, 1910, of the District Judge of North Arcot, by which the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff is the appellant.2. The suit was brought in the Court of the District Judge of North Arcot on the 16th November, 1907, to redeem three mortgages dated respectively the 12th December, 1876; the 7th January, 1879, and the 10th May, 1881. The mortgages were of ancestral property, and were made by the father of the plaintiff before the plaintiff or his brother, since deceased, were born. The mortgage of the 7th January, 1879, was in favour of N. Vijayaragavachariar, a vakil, to whom their Lordships will refer as the vakil. The mortgages of the 12th December, 1876, and the 10th May, 1881, vested by assignment in the vakil. The plaintiff in this suit was born in September 1881; his brother was born in May 1882.3. On the 19th March, 1886, the vakil ...
Radhakant Lal Vs. Mussammat Nazama Begum and Mussammat Nasiban
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR724
Walter Phillimore, J.1. The suits to which these consolidated appeals relate concern the validity and effect of two deeds of gift made by one Drigpal Lal, deceased, the father of the first plaintiff and appellant, and grandfather of the other plaintiffs and appellants, in favour of two concubines and the daughter of one of them.2. The son asserts that he and his father were joint members of a Hindu family, and that the properties to which the gifts relate wore part of the joint family estate This is the question to be determined in the suit.3. Some of the properties in question came to Drigpal from the estate of his brother, Din Dayal, and others were acquired by the use of the revenues of Din Dayal's estate ; and the first matter to be enquired into is whether the property which came to Drigpal from Din Dayal's estate was self-acquired property or came to him as part of the joint family estate.4. The circumstances in which it was acquired are as follows:-Drigpal and Din Dayal were two...
Rehmat-un-nissa Begum Vs. John Price
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR714
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction, dated the 8th September, 1914, varying a decree of that Court in its original jurisdiction passed on the 28th March, 1914 The suit is for a dissolution of partnership. The original plaintiff was Nawab Kamal Khan, but he has died in the course of the suit and the present appellants are his representatives. The defendants, his partners, are the respondents in this appeal. The partnership was constituted on the 11th ice March, 1908, and its terms are contained in an instrument of that date. To appreciate its purpose and legal effect it will be convenient to describe briefly the events that led up to its execution. The defendants, a firm of contractors, had undertaken the construction of the New Alexandra Dock in the island of Bombay, and they required for the work a large supply of granite and other stone. They accordingly made two contracts in 1906 for this supply, and in bot...
Girjashankar Dayashankar Vaidya Vs. the B.B. and C.i. Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Bom129; (1918)20BOMLR126; 45Ind.Cas.715
Batchelor, J.1. The appellant before us was the plaintiff in the Court below, his suit having been dismissed by Kajiji J. The plaintiff, who is a managing clerk in a firm of Bombay Solicitors, brought the suit to recover damages from the defendant railway company, on account of the wrongful and tor tious acts of their servants, an engine-driver and a guard.2. Owing to various admissions made by the parties at the trial, the facts have not been elicited from the witnesses with the usual completeness, but there can be no doubt upon the record what the essential facts are, and Mr. Campbell for the railway company did not press his attempt to give to them any other complexion than that which appeared to the learned trial Judge. These facts are as follows :-On the night of the 18th March 1916, the plaintiff was a third class passenger in one of the defendant's trains. The plaintiff's compartment was greatly overcrowded to the inconvenience and discomfort of the occupants. After ineffectual ...
Khatubai Vs. Mahomed Haji Abu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom165; (1918)20BOMLR289; 45Ind.Cas.619
Marten, J.1. In the year 1897 the Government of India being minded to amend the personal law of Cutchi Memons as regards in particular inheritance and succession, caused a Public Notice to be inserted in (inter alia) the Bombay Government Gazette (Exh, L.) and the Porebunder State Gazette (Exh. M) with a view to ascertain the wishes of the community on the subject. The Notice is issued from the Judicial Department of the Government of Bombay and is described as a 'Public Notice to the Momon Community by the Government of Bombay at the desire of the Govornment of India. ' In that Notice the following passage occurs, viz. :-The Memon Community in India is divided into two sects, the Halai Memons and the Cutchi Momcns. The former without exception follow the Mahomedan law in all respects and are not therefore affected by the proposed legislation.The question I have to decide in the present suit is in effect whether that passage is correct. In other words, are Halai Memons without exceptio...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »