Mumbai Court September 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.
Narayan Balkrishna Rajadhyaksha Vs. Fasku Monu Lem and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Bom251; (1918)ILR42Bom87
Beaman, J.1. This is one of those troublesome cases in which a piece of land appears to have been held for many years by various tenants-in-common one of whom now seeks to recover from the lessee of the others his own share of the tenancy by partition together with arrears of rent. It is not as plain as it might be whether from the commencement the plaintiff was seeking partition or whether he intended his suit to be regarded as one in ejectment against the tenant wrongfully holding over. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2. are the lessees of 11/12ths of the entire tenancy-in-common. The plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are joint tenants of the remaining 1/12th of the tenancy-in-common. In 1901, it is admitted that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had attorned to the plaintiff as representing the joint owners of the 1/12th share for a term of one year. Since then we are not informed whether the defendants actually paid rent to the plaintiff and his co-sharers, for this relatively small pa...
Narayan Balkrishna Rajadhyaksha Vs. Fascu Monu Lem and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.471
Beaman, J.1. This is one of those troublesome oases in which a piece of land appears to have been held for many years by various tenants-in-common, one of whom now seeks to recover from the lessee of the others his own share of the tenancy by partition together with arrears of rent. It is not as plain as it might be whether from the commencement the plaintiff was seeking partition or whether he intended his suit to be regarded as one in ejectment against the tenant wrongfully holding over. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the lessees of eleven-twelfths of the entire tenancy-in-common. The plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 3 and 4 are joint tenants of the remaining one-twelfth of the tenancy-in-common. In 1901 it is admitted that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 had attorned to the plaintiff as representing the joint owners of the one-twelfth share for a term of one year. Since then we are not informed whether the defendants actually paid rent to the plaintiff and his co-sharers for this rela...
Mahmadbhai Dosabhai Kathiara Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom57; (1918)20BOMLR22; 43Ind.Cas.744
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sues the Secretary of State to recover the levy of excess assessment being Rs. 85 a year upon a plot of 17 gunthas converted from cultivable to building site land. The learned District Judge has held that the Collector's action was justified by the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and refused the relief I have just mentioned as well as ' further relief by way of perpetual injunction.2. The case is one of considerable difficulty. It has been very fully argued and we have given our best attention to every point made on behalf of the appellant. The facts material to our judgment may be briefly stated thus :The plot of land in suit was in the occupation of potters before the year 1872. In 1872, it appears that the Collector acting under Section 35 of Act I of 1865, called upon the occupant to pay thirty times the assessment as fine for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural uses. Under the Act of 1865 laud was classified under two heads only ...
Mahmadbhai Dosubhai Kathiara Vs. the Secretary of State for India in C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR42Bom126
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sues the Secretary of State to recover the levy of excess assessment being Rs. 85 a year upon a plot of 17 gunthas converted from cultivable to building site land. The learned District Judge has held that the Collector's action was justified by the provisions of the Land Revenue Code and refused the relief I have just mentioned as well as further relief by way of perpetual injunction.2. The case is one of considerable difficulty. It has been very fully argued and we have given our best attention to every point made on behalf of the appellant. The facts material to our judgment may be briefly stated thus:The plot of land in suit was in the occupation of potters before the year 1872. In 1872 it appears that the Collector, acting under Section 35 of Act I of 1865, called upon the occupant to pay thirty times the assessment as fine for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural uses. Under the Act of 1865, land was classified under two heads only, a...
Emperor Vs. Sidramaya Ghannaya Kudal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1917
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR912; 43Ind.Cas.321
Beaman, J.1. This application raises a novel point. The petitioner, formerly a police officer, according to his own case, was deputed to investigate a charge against one Rudrappa for disposing of his minor daughter Huchi for purposes of prostitution, under Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code. In the course of his investigation he says that he obtained information that one Annappa was to visit the girl Huchi who had by that time attained her majority and that in consequence he went to the house then occupied by herself and her mother in the middle of the night. There he alleged that he was set upon by the accused who confined him in a room and when he escaped caught him, assaulted him and dragged him back and further confined him. He charged all the accused persons under Sections 342 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code.2. It is obvious that in order to establish the charge under Section 353 the prosecution would have to show that the petitioner, when attacked, was acting in the discharge ...
Timaji Krishna Potdar Vs. Rama Piraji Bhatkhande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Bom181; (1918)20BOMLR175; 45Ind.Cas.862
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The facts out of which this appeal arises are these. In 1871 one Koneri affected to mortgage to the plaintiff No. 1 three pieces of property, namely, Survey No. 1088, one-third of Survey No. 1058 and a house. It was afterwards discovered, and is now admitted, that in fact Koneri had no title whatever to Survey No. 1088. In 1877, the mortgagor Koneri sold the equity of redemption in the two mortgaged properties to one Britto, who was the father of the 3rd defendant, and Britto in his turn sold the equity of redemption in the house to the defendant No. 2's father. This last sale was in 1880. The suit was brought by the plaintiffs to recover their money by the sale of the mortgaged property. The 1st defendant was sued as the heir of Koneri, but he took no part in the proceedings, and admittedly has no interest in the litigation.2. It was contended in the lower Courts on behalf of the 2nd defendant that he was entitled to the application of the princip...
Chunilal Lallubhai Vs. Bhogilal Lakhmichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.468
Stanley Batchelor, C.J.1. This is one of those cases where theCourt has to do the best it can with an obscure, home made, vernacular Will left by a testator who evidently was not familiar with the English notions of a Will. We must endeavour to ascertain the testator's wishes through the medium of the words which he has used. The important words are those occurring in paragraph 10 of the Will, where, after directing the division of his property into moieties, and the gift of one of them to his widow and the other to his daughter Mani, the testator goes on:And one part should be given to my daughter Mani, and the said Mani and her husband should live in my house and maintain themselves and use and enjoy it but her sasarias (i.e., the people on her husband's side) or her creditors or her co-sharers and Others have got no right of any kind to take it, and if any issue be born to her, it (i.e., the issue) is the owner thereof, but if perhaps there be no issue born to her or if she were to ...
Emperor Vs. Maula Baba Fakir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1917
Reported in: AIR1918Bom254(1); (1917)19BOMLR907; 43Ind.Cas.332
1. We think there can be no doubt but that the accused broke the law. We do not wish to cast any reflections upon his saintly character or impute to him any intention of indecency. The law, however, is framed much more in the interests of the general public than in that of ecstatic and religious eccentrics who may have their own ideas of public propriety. If this were clearly borne in mind, we should be spared the repetition of such arguments as have been addressed to us today on behalf of the accused. No man is above the law. That is enacted for the benefit of the whole community and however innocent the accused's intentions may have been-and we are willing to concede that they were-however tolerantly his acts may have been viewed by those who know and revere him, if he frequents public places in a city like Nasik, in a state of nudity, he may at any time give just cause of offence to other members of the public not acquainted with him who may meet him in that state. We think, therefo...
Emperor Vs. Dattu Nana Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1917
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR902; 43Ind.Cas.253
Heaton, J.1. In this case three persons were charged and the charge arose out of the following incidents :-There was a long-standing enmity existing in the village of Peth in the Satara District between one Krishna and his party and certain other villagers. Coming to recent history the day before this particular offence occurred, some members of the party opposed to Krishna were beaten. On the following day two of the accused in this case, Dattu No. 1 and Ganu No. 2 and a third person named Manku who is said to have absconded, had an altercation with Krishna in the bazaar. Thereafter Krishna went to his field where his father was and from the field the father, Gopala and Krishna with his brother Vishnu and two others proceeded to the village and as they got into the village, they encountered a party of which Dattu, Ganu and Manku and a fourth person were members. They threw stones at this party and to some extent at any rate forced them back. The stone-throwing became mutual and Gopala...
Emperor Vs. Abhram Adam Ishe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1917
Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR908; 43Ind.Cas.325
Heaton, J.1. We have heard this matter argued at very considerable length. The fact was that the applicant in this case was accused of an offence and was put before a Magistrate who took the evidence and discharged him. Subsequently the District Magistrate ordered a retrial under the powers conferred on him by Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The applicant has come to us in revision against that ordor of the District Magistrate.2. I must mention that the District Magistrate made his order of retrial without giving notice to the present applicant and without affording him an opportunity of being heard, and, speaking for myself, I think that is a proceeding which is not consonant with the broad general principles of our judicial administration. I think that when an order is made which is so very seriously to the prejudice of an accused person as directing his retrial, it ought not to be made without giving him an opportunity of being heard, although the law does not specially ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »