Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1917Bom220; 40Ind.Cas.699
Batchelor, J.1. This is a case of some peculiarity inasmuch as the appellant has been convicted of murder on his own plea and has been sentenced to death, there being no evidence recorded in the Court of Session. The learned Judge below has explained very carefully and fully why he adopted the course of convicting the accused on his own plea, and it seems to me clear from the judgment that the learned Judge gave the matter much consideration and acted as he thought for the best in the circumstances of some novelty. Nor can it be said, at least in my opinion, that the learned Sessions Judge was definitely wrong in any point of law. Probably if his attention had been called to the practice of the Courts in such circumstances, he would have acted otherwise. That practice is defined by Sir Lawrence Jenkins, C.J. and Mr. Justice Russell in Emperor v. Chinia Bhika Koli 8 Bom. L.R. 240 : 3 Cri. L.J. 337 where it is laid down that 'it is not in accordance with the usual practice to accept a pl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 40Ind.Cas.805
Macleod, J.1. This suit was originally filed by four of the sons of Dossa Ebji against a fifth son and two other persons, praying that the defendants might be restrained by an injunction from excluding the plaintiffs from their share in the partnership in this suit, or, in the alternative, that the partnership might be dissolved from the date of the suit and the affairs thereof might be wound up under the directions of this Honourable Court.2. The first plaintiff died after the suit was filed and his son has been added as the fourth defendant. The fourth plaintiff apparently had some disputes with his co-plaintiffs and his name was struck out firm the record as plaintiff and added as the fifth defendant, The family to which the parties belong was joint and undivided, and for many years they had been carrying on business in salt. I need not go further back than 1909 when there was a family agreement, a part of which referred to a certain business in salt carried on at Bhaynder in which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1917Bom226; (1917)ILR41Bom560
Batchelor, J.1. The present petitioners have applied to this Court in revision against an order made by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate acquitting the opponents, who in the Magistrate's Court had been charged by the petitioners with infringement of the petitioners' copyright in certain calendars under Section 7 of the Copyright Act III of 1914. The sole ground upon which the learned Magistrate has acquitted the opponents is that there was no copyright in the calendars in question, because these calendars had not been registered under Act XX of 1847. It is contended by Mr. Setalvad that that view of the learned Magistrate was erroneous in law. For the purpose of the present argument I will assume that the learned Counsel's position upon this point is indisputable. Upon that assumption we have still to consider whether this Court in the proper exercise of its discretion ought to interfere with this order of acquittal.2. Under the law the sole power of appealing against acquittals...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1917)ILR41Bom510
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. We see no reason to differ from the conclusion by the learned Assistant Judge on the questions of res judicata and limitation.2. The only other point arising on the appeal is whether the plaintiffs had an equity of redemption remaining in them, and that depends upon whether the Rajinama or the series of Rajinamas upon which the defendants rely required registration. The learned Assistant Judge observes:It is perfectly clear that the transactions with regard to the Khata of the land which took place between 1875 and 1878 were intended to transfer ownership. Mutation of names was a well recognized means of transfer Unfortunately for the defendants, Rajinamas and Kabulayats in alienated villages had no legal standing at the time these transactions took place. Act I of 1865 did not apply to such villages. The Rajinama by which Anandrao transferred his interest to the Mamlatdar was, therefore, a document which required registration, and so it cannot be proved in Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1917Bom244; 40Ind.Cas.68
Basil Scott, C.J.1. We see no reason to differ from the conclusion by the learned Assistant Judge on the questions of res judicata and limitation.2. The only other point arising on the appeal is whether the plaintiffs had an equity of redemption remaining in them, and that depends upon whether the rajinama or the series of rajinamas upon which the defendants rely required registration. The learned Assistant Judge observes:it is perfectly clear that the transactions with regard to the khata of the land which took place between 1875 and 1878. were intended to transfer ownership. Mutation of names was a well recognised means of transfer. Unfortunately for the defendants, rajinamas and kabuliyats in alienated villages had no legal standing at the time these transactions took place. Act I of 1865 did not apply to such villages. The rajinama by which Anandrao transferred his interest to the mamlatdar was, therefore, a document which required registration, and so it cannot be proved in Court....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1917Bom211; (1917)19BOMLR300
1. The only question we have to answer is whether Tajbi is under the Mahomedan law, the legitimate (laughter of Hussankhan.2. The admitted facts are that he first married Amabi and subsequently her sister Sadabi, who is the mother of Tajbi. The later marriage took place during the subsistence of the marriage with Amabi and both sisters appear to have survived him.3. The same question arose in the case of Aizunnissa v. Karimunnissa I.L.R. (1895) Cal. 130. The Calcutta High Court held that the issue of a sister of the husband's first wife, if the second marriage was contracted or consummated during the continuance of the first, that is before the sister first married had died or been divorced, was illegitimate.4. We are unable to agree with that view of the Mahomedan law. There is nothing in the reasons to be found in the judgment, there is nothing in the mass of material upon which the judgment is based, which, in our opinion, would warrant a Court in overriding so high and so clear an ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1917Bom276; (1917)19BOMLR549; 42Ind.Cas.32
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J1. This suit was filed by the original plaintiff, a Mahomedan, against four Hindus, alleging that as the owner of a twelve-annas share in the inam villages of Vahal and Patowdhi in the Panvel Taluka, in which His brother the late Abdul Hak was the owner of the other undivided four-annas share, he was on account of a contract entered into by Sirdar Ali Khan the executor of Abdul Hak for the sale of the latter's four-annas share to the defendants entitled under the Mahomedan law to a right of pre-emption of the four annas share which had passed into the possession of the defendants under a sale-deed executed by their vendor.2. The contract of sale was entered into on the 14th of October 1908 and on the same date a letter was sent by the executor of Abdul Hak, the vendor, to the plaintiff intimating that he had sold the quarter share in the villages to the defendants for the sum of Rs. 29,999. That letter stated that as the plaintiff was the Inamdar of the three-fourt...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1917Bom221; (1917)19BOMLR561; 41Ind.Cas.180
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of a house which he bought under a registered sale-deed from defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The defendant No. 1 is the mother of the defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 pleaded minority. The lower appellate Court found as facts that the defendant No. 2 not being clearly a minor in appearance, represented to the plaintiff and so intentionally caused the plaintiff to believe, that he was a major and on the faith of that belief to part with her money, The learned Judge of first appeal is clearly of opinion that the belief was induced by the express declaration of the defendant No. 2 and that in all the circumstances it was a reasonable belief. 2. The question, then, is whether the learned Judge below was right in holding that the defendant No. 2 was now estopped from pleading minority and proving it. The point is directly covered by authority. It was held in the case of Ganesh Lala v. Bapu I.L.R. (1895) Bom. 198 that in precisely similar ci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1917)19BOMLR480
Sumner, J.1. This suit was brought by members of a family called the Kumars of Dighapatia against certain persons, called collectively the Kundu Babus of Mahiari, to recover khas possession, jointly with their co-sharer maliks, of a 10-anna share in portions of mouzahs Durlabhpur, Jirat, and Hatikauda. Wasilat was also claimed. Some years ago the Ganges overflowed these lands. They have now reformed in situ.2. The plaintiffs held one moiety of the zemindari lot Mahomed Aminpur, the other moiety being held by various persons, who were joined as subordinate defendants. To this Mahal, bearing Towzi No. 3989 of the Hoogly Collectorate, this 10-anna share was said to have belonged for at least a century. The 6-anna share was the property of the principal defendants in right of their zemindari, viz., Lot Gobindpur bearing Towzi No. 100. The Trial Judge found for the plaintiffs' title. The High Court criticised this decision as having been arrived at ' without any real discussion or considera...
Tag this Judgment!