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.
Sonoo Narayan Vs. Dinkar Jagannath Marathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom53; (1918)ILR42Bom80
Stanley Batchelor, Acting C.J.1. This is an application in the extraordinary jurisdiction made by one Sonoo Narayan. He and the opponent Dinkar Jagannath instituted cross suits in the Court of Small Causes, the petitioner's suit being to recover a sum of Rs. 507, while the opponent's suit was to recover Rs. 225. A reference having been made to the pleader Mr. Manchashankar as a Commissioner, that gentleman made his report which was in favour of the present petitioner and against the opponent. That report was confirmed by the learned Fifth Judge, who was the Judge of trial, and an order was made accordingly. Thereafter a Rule for a new trial was obtained by the present opponent from the Full Court. On the Rule coming up for argument before the learned Chief Judge sitting with the Fifth Judge as a Full Court, there was a difference of opinion between the learned Judges, the Chief Judge holding that the opponent's suit should be wholly allowed, and the petitioner's suit should be disallow...
In Re: D.B. Cooper and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom31; (1918)ILR42Bom119; 43Ind.Cas.465
Beaman, J.1. The question argued upon this rule is a novel and somewhat difficult one. It arises in this way:In the year 1909 Alexander Lewis was appointed Nazir of the District Court of Satara. The applicants stood surety for him in that character. As a Nazir he undoubtedly falls within the definition of a public accountant within the meaning of Act XII of 1850. The two applicants executed a surety bond in favour of the Secretary of State for India the words of which clearly indicate that it was drafted with special reference to Act XII of 1850. Before Lewis was appointed Nazir one of his predecessors Javeri had been appointed under the Guardians and Wards Act to be guardian of the estate of a minor. The appointment appears not to have been made in the name of Mr. Javeri, but generally in that of the Nazir of the Court. Javeri was succeeded for a short time by one Pendharkar. In this argument we are told that Pendharkar did not take upon himself the duties of guardian of this estate. ...
Sonoo Narayen Vs. Dinkar Jagannath Marathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1917
Reported in: 43Ind.Cas.486
Stanley Batchelor, C.J.1. This is an application in the extraordinary jurisdiction made by one Sonoo Narayan. He and the opponent Dinkar Jagannath instituted cross-suits in the Court of Small Cause, the petitioner's suit being to recover a sum of Rs. 507, while the opponent's suit was to recover Rs. 225. A reference having been made to the Pleader Mr. Manchashankar as a Commissioner, that gentleman made his report which was in favour of the present petitioner and against the opponent. That report was confirmed by the learned Fifth Judge, who was the Judge of trial, and an order was made accordingly. Thereafter a Rule for a new trial was obtained by the present opponent from the Pull Court. On the Rule coming up for argument before the learned Chief Judge sitting with the Fifth Judge as a Full Court, there was a difference of opinion between the learned Judges, the Chief Judge holding that the opponent's suit should be wholly allowed and the petitioner's suit should be disallowed, while...
Emperor Vs. Bhimaji Venkaji Nadgir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom33; (1918)20BOMLR89
Heaton, J.1. We understand that the accused person in this case who is charged with harbouring an offender and receiving a bribe from him and who has been committed to the Court of Session at Dharwar, is a Vatandar Patil and consequently that he could not be prosecuted except with the sanction provided by Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is on this understanding that the judgment of this Court is based.2. We start, therefore, with this, that a previous sanction was under Section 197 essential to confor jurisdiction on the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence. Now as a matter of fact he took cognizance of this offence and proceeded some way with his enquiry before any sanction was signed by the sanctioning officer. For he began to take evidence in the case on the 5th of April and the sanction was not signed until the 12th. So obviously there was no previous sanction. The defect becomes still more glaring when we learn, as happens to be true in this case, that the s...
Huchrao Timmaji Vs. Bhimrao Gururao Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom10(2); (1918)20BOMLR161
Shah, J.1. The first point urged in support of these appeals relates to the share of the plaintiffs in the cash allowance in dispute. The plaintiffs contend that they are entitled to three-fourths of the whole allowance and the defendants contend that the plaintiffs are entitled only to one-half. This point entirely depends upon the question whether the plaintiffs' father Gururao was adopted by Bhimrao in the dvyamushyayana form or in the ordinary (i.e. kevala) form. The trial Court found that he was adopted in the simple form and not in the dvyamushyayana form. The appellate Court, however, came to the conclusion that he must be presumed to be the dvyamushyayana son of Bhimrao and Kattapa. The learned District Judge, however, has pointed out that there is no evidence of any stipulation that Gururao was to be treated as the son of both fathers made at the time of the adoption; but he relied upon a certain observation in Sarkar's Hindu Law and the case of Krishna v. Paramshri I.L.R. (19...
Emperor Vs. Bandu Ebrahim and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1917
Reported in: (1918)ILR42Bom181
Shah, J.1. We have heard an interesting and a careful argument from Mr. velinkar on behalf Of the appellants in this case, I have considered the evidence in the light of his arguments and the criticism to i which the evidence has been subjected by him. The charge against the two accused is that from the 10th of October 1916 they wrongfully confined one Vithibai for three or more days and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 343 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused No. 2 is a brothel keeper in Bombay and accused No. 1 is said to have supplied women to be used as prostitutes in this brothel from time to time. He brought Vithibai, the complainant in this case, to Bombay and kept her in the brothel of accused No. 2. The case for the prosecution is that this Vithibai like other women in the brothel was kept in confinement. Vithibai stayed on in the house kept by accused No. 2 from, the 10th of October until May 1917 when an application was prepared on her behalf by the wit...
Pandu Bala Jagtap Vs. Ramchandra Ganesh Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom153; (1918)20BOMLR16; 43Ind.Cas.738
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is admittedly a Kadim Inamdar of the village of Kenjal. He was not a mere grantee of the Government share of rent and land revenue, but a grantee out and out of all the land comprised in his Inam. Subsequently, the remaining rights of the Government to land revenue have been given in Inam to the family of the Rastes. The defendant claims to be a Mirasdar by a tenure antecedent to the grant to the plaintiff. His contention is that he falls within the protection of Section 217 of the Land Revenue Code as it stood before its amendment in 1913. It is admitted that a survey settlement has been introduced into the village of Kenjal. The defendant, therefore, claims that being a holder, he is entitled to all the rights of an occupant in an unalienated village, and the Kadim Inamdar cannot, therefore, enhance his rent.2. Presented in this form the matter in issue between the parties is res Integra as far as I can discover and has never yet been precisely...
Sadashiv Parsharam Risbud Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom38; (1918)20BOMLR141
Heaton, J.1. This suit relates to the right to some teak trees which grew on certain Khata lands in the Khoti villages of Girne and Nanavali in the Mangaon Taluka of the Kolaba District. These trees were sold by the Government to the Khatedars and were cut and removed by the latter. The Khots claimed the proceeds on the ground that they were the owners of the trees. They also claimed alternatively one-third of the proceeds on the strength of a clause in the Kabulayats which they signed year by year. They made the Secretary of State for India in Council the sole defendant, having previously unsuccessfully brought suits against some of the Khatedars.2. The two villages of Girne and Nanavali are Khoti villages. In 1865-66 a Survey Settlement was introduced into these villages and under the provisions of Sections 37 and 38 of Bombay Act I of 1865 the position of the tenants was secured. A Kabulayat for the period of the settlement was not given to the Khots who as before signed annual Kabu...
Bai Jayagavri Vs. Purshotamdas Sunderlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom15; (1918)20BOMLR177
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. In 1885 Pranjivan became the mortgagee of the plaint property. In 1890, the right, title and interest of the mortgagor was purchased by the predecessors of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2. In 1899, Pranjivan died leaving a widow Hariganga and a daughter's daughter, the plaintiff. He also left a will whereby substantially the widow Hariganga was given a life-interest in the property, and the grand-daughter the remainder absolutely. In 1900, the defendant No. 3 who was a confidential clerk of Hariganga purchased from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 the equity of redemption in the mortgage. He says that, on the 5th of April 1900, he paid off the mortgage. The mortgage-deed bears an endorsement that the mortgage is satisfied. But it is found as a fact in both Courts that the endorsement is a sham, that nothing was really paid in satisfaction of the mortgage, and that the mortgage still subsists. No transfer of the property was taken by the 3rd defendant from the representative...
Subbi Ganpatibhatta Neelmane Vs. Ramkrishnabhatta Shankarbhatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1917
Reported in: AIR1917Bom11; (1917)19BOMLR919; 43Ind.Cas.233
Beaman, J.1. The material facts are that there were three brothers Subba, Param and Manja, constituting a joint Hindu xamily. We take it that they did constitute a joint Hindu family, for, although this point may have to be determined when the case comes to be tried on its merits, the presumption is that they did and such were the pleadings of the plaintiff throughout. These three brothers died in this order : Param died first; then Subba; and Manja died last in the year 1878. Each of the brothers left a widow. Ganapannna was the widow of the eldest brother Subba. Parami was the widow of the second brother Param; and Venkamma was the widow of the last surviving brother Manja. For the purposes of the argument before us, we shall assume that Manja was the last male owner of the estate and therefore on his death in 1878 his widow Venkamma took a widow's life estate in the entire property. It is evident that she must then have been comparatively young. What actually happened, although we d...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »