Mumbai Court July 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.
Hathising Jeebhai Baria Vs. Kuber Jetha Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1917
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR33
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. It appears from the judgment of the learned Joint Judge that he has presumed certain entries in the Record of Rights to be true. Those entries were made originally in 1905-06, and were repeated in 1912-13. The revenue years end on the 31st March. Therefore, the latter entry in the Record of Rights must be taken to have been made prior to the 31st March 1913. Bombay Act IV of 1913, which amended the Land Revenue Code, and superceded the original Record of Rights Act of 1903, enacted that a, new section 135 J should be added to the Land Revenue Code, providing that ' an entry in the Record of in the Register of mutations shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor.' That Amending Act did not receive the assent of the Governor General in Council until the 28th May 1913, which would be in the revenue year 1913-1914 subsequent to the year in which the last entry relied upon by the learned Judge was made. ...
Khemraj Shrikrishnadas Vs. Kisanlala Surajmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom137; (1917)19BOMLR771; 42Ind.Cas.67
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for security for costs of an appeal. The applicant is the successful plaintiff who obtained, a decree against the defendant on the ground that an adoption under which the defendant obtained certain property was invalid. The defendant appealed by his natural father, he being a minor and applied for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. This application was granted and his appeal is accordingly governed by Order XLIV of the Code which provides that 'any person...may be allowed to appeal as a pauper, subject, in. all matters including the presentation of such application, to the provisions relating to suits by paupers, in so far as those provisions are applicable.' The provisions relating to suits by paupers are contained in Order XXXIII. Rule 11 of that Order provides that ' where the plaintiff fails in the suit...the Court shall order the plaintiff, or any person added as a co-plaintiff to the suit, to pay the court-fees which would have been...
Zipru Talhoo Vs. Hari Supdushet Vani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom133; (1917)19BOMLR774
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The appellants being aggrieved by the possession obtained by the judgment-creditor of family property in which they had an interest and they not being judgment-debtors applied under Order XXI, Rule 100, complaining of their dispossession by the judgment-creditor. Upon that application the Court decided in favour of the judgment-creditor and dismissed the application. The question is whether the appellants are now parties against whom an order has been made under Rule 101 who may institute a suit to establish the right which they claim to present possession of the property and against whom in default of a suit the order is conclusive. In my opinion the order made against an applicant refusing him relief under Rule 101 is as much an order under that rule, as an order granting him relief would be. The rule is a reproduction with certain alterations of part of Section 332 of the Code of 1882, which provided that ' if the Court finds that the ground mentioned in the...
Emperor Vs. Mallangowda BIn Parwatgowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom130; (1918)ILR42Bom1
Batchelor, J.1. The first question that arises in, these appeals is whether a certain extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the 1st accused to one Kumarappa in the presence of the Sub-Assistant Surgeon in the, dispensary is admissible in evidence or should be excluded under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned -Sessions Judge tells us that he was at first disposed to exclude the evidence, but on further, consideration decided to admit it. I am of opinion that the learned Judge's first impressions were correct and. that he erred in admitting the confession upon his record.2. The facts are that while this accused was in the lockup of the Magistrate under trial, he was sent by that Magistrate to the dispensary in order to be treated for a malady which involved an examination of the patient in private. Two policemen took the accused from the lock-up to the dispensary. At the dispensary the policemen waited outside on the verandah while the accused was inside und...
Maung Thwe Vs. Maung Tun Pe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR69
Walter Phillimore, Bart.1. The litigation in this case concerns the succession to the estate of U Shwe Mya and Ma Shwe I, Burmans, professing the Buddhist faith, a wealthy married couple who died childless; the husband early in 1906,. and the wife on the 9th of February, 1908. Upon the death of the latter a contest arose between the claims of Maung Thwe, a nephew of the husband, and Maung Tun Pe, a nephew of the wife, each claiming to be the sole adopted child and to succeed to the exclusion of the other.2. After certain abortive police proceedings the contest took a regular shape, Maung Thwe being the applicant for administration and Maung Tun Pe resisting him and setting up his rival claim.3. Much evidence was given before the District Judge, and he in the result decreed letters of administration to Maung Tun Pe, upon what ground does not appear.4. Maung Thwe, being aggrieved by this decision, appealed to the Chief Court, which refused to hear the case upon the merits or to interfere...
Mussummat Gunjeshwar Kunwar Vs. Durga Prashad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR38
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 7th May, 1912, of the High Court at Calcutta which reversed a decree, dated the 31st March, 1908, of the Officiating Subordinate Judge of Bankipur and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff who is the appellant here is a minor and is suing by her next friend. The defendants are Durga Prashad Singh, an uncle of the plaintiff, Mussummat Harbans Kunwar, her mother, and three assignees of the defendant Durga Prashad Singh.2. The suit was brought on the 21st July, 1906, to obtain a declaration that a compromise which was entered into between Durga Prashad Singh, who is the first defendant in this suit, and Mussummat Harbans Kunwar, and a decree dated the 30th August, 1904, which was made in pursuance of that compromise, are not binding upon the plaintiff; a declaration that the plaintiff's father, Bishambhar Prashad Singh, was at the time of his death separate from his brother, the defendant, Durga Prashad Singh; a declaration that the d...
Sir Dorabji Jamsetji Tata, Vs. Edward F. Lance and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom138; (1918)ILR42Bom676
Marten, J.1. This is a Notice of motion for an injunction and order in terms of prayers (c) and (e) of the plaint. Those prayers are: (c) that the first and second defendants (who represent the Western India Turf Club) may be restrained by an order and injunction of this Court from withdrawing ticket No. 15315 from the lottery and (e) that pending the decision of this suit the first and second defendants may be restrained by an order and injunction, of this Court from paying the amount of any prize drawn by the ticket No. 15315 or any ticket substituted in place thereof to the third defendant.2. Put shortly, the facts are these: The plaintiff purchased through the admitted agents of the defendant Club a ticket bearing the number 15315. Those agents were Messrs. Thomas Cook & Son of Bombay. They had the disposal of this ticket and they gave a receipt to the plaintiff for the Rs. 10 paid in respect of that particular ticket bearing that particular number. But it appears that at that mome...
Dorabji Jamshedji Tata, Kt. Vs. Edward F. Lance and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1917
Reported in: 41Ind.Cas.869
Marten, J.1. This is a notice of motion for an injunction and order in terms of prayers (c) and (e) of the plaint. Those prayers are: (c) that the first and second defendants (who represent the Western India Turf Club) may be restrained by an order and injunction of this Court from withdrawing ticket No. 15315 from the lottery, and (e) that pending the decision of this suit the first and second defendants may be restrained' by an order and injunction of this Court from paying the amount of any price drawn by the ticket No. 15315 or any ticket substituted in place thereof to the third defendant.2. Pat shortly the facts are these: The plaintiff purchased through the admitted agents of the defendant Club a ticket bearing the number 15315. Those agents were Messrs. Thomas Cook & Son of Bombay. They had the disposal of this ticket and they gave a receipt to the plaintiff for the Rs. 10 paid in respect of that particular ticket bearing that particular number. But it appears that at that mome...
Haradas Acharjya Chowdhuri, Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1917
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR49
Buckmaster, J.1. The river Ganges in its course through the district of Dacca rests so uneasily in its bed, that its boundaries can never at any moment be defined with the certainty that their limitation will be long observed. Frequently the river leaves its course, flows over large tracts of land, leaving other areas bare, and then again its waters recede, giving back the lands submerged in whole or in part to use and cultivation. It is obvious that difficulties as to ownership must arise in these circumstances, and of the extent and complication of these difficulties the present case affords an excellent illustration. The general law that is applicable is free from doubt. The bed of a public navigable river is the property of the Government, though the banks may be the subject of private ownership. If there be slow accretion to the land on either side, due, for instance, to the gradual accumulation of silt, this forms part of the estate of the riparian owner to whose bank the accreti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›