Mumbai Court January 1918 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.
Ganu Walad Ramji Patil Vs. Bhau Walad Bapuji Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR42Bom512
Shah, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are briefly these.2. Bala and Ganu, who were originally natural brothers, and became first cousins in consequence of Ganu's adoption by their uncle, and each of whom was entitled to a moiety of certain property purported to sell the property to one Shankar in 1892. On the 18th of August 1898, Shankar purported to convey some of these lands for Rs. 100 Jo Bhau Patil who is defendant No. 1. On the 17th September 1904, Shankar conveyed certain other properties for Rs. 161 to defendant No. 1. The properties conveyed in 1898 have been described before us as roughly representing the moiety owned by Ganu and the properties conveyed in 1904 by Shankar as representing the moiety owned by Bala.3. The present suit was brought by Ganu to have it declared that the plaint properties, that is, the properties first conveyed, or mortgaged by Bala and Ganu to Shankar belonged to and were in possession of the plaintiff. The defendants, Bhau Patil ...
Janardan Govind Karguppikar Vs. Narayan Krishnaji Karguppikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR421
Beaman, J.1. The decree with which we are concerned was made by the Subordinate Judge of Belgaum. The decree-holder applied to that Court to transfer the execution of the decree or a part of it to the Court of Shahapur, which is a Court of the Native State of Sangli. It is conceded that if this application does not save limitation under Art. 182, further execution is now barred. If it does, the latest application for execution is in time.2. The point is a very narrow one. It has been considered by a Bench of the Punjab Chief Court Nawab Saadat Ali Khan v. Nawab Muhammad Ali Khan (1881) P.R. No. 107 of 1881 and a Full Bench of the Madras High Court Pierce Leslie v. Perumal I.L.R. (1917) Mad. 1069. These judgments reach the same conclusion. In effect they hold that 'execution' in Art. 182 must be strictly confined to execution authorised and controlled by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Nothing done to get in the property decreed, which is not done within those statutory limi...
Ramacharya Venkatramanacharya Vs. Shrinivasacharya Venkatramanacharya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom183; (1918)20BOMLR441
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs alleging that the lands in suit were the Inam lands of Shri Venkatesh of Munavalli, constituting an endowment for the worship of that idol, sued to recover possession of them from the defendants on the ground that a gift of the lands made by the plaintiffs' predecessors to the defendants' predecessors was of no effect in law. The plaintiffs, averring that they were no longer willing to accept the services of the 1st defendant in connection with this temple, claimed to be entitled to recover the lands. The only issue raised in the lower Courts, which is now material, is the issue of limitation, the choice before the Courts lying between Section 10 and Art. 134 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned trial Judge, applying Art. 134, held that the suit was out of time, and consequently dismissed it. Admittedly it is out of time if Art. 134 is to be applied. In the lower Court of appeal the learned Assistant Judge was of op...
Lakhichand Chatrabhuj Marwadi Vs. Lalchand Ganpat Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom161; (1918)20BOMLR354; 45Ind.Cas.555
Beaman, J.1. This is a very unsatisfactory case. The plaintiff sued on a mortgage. There were seven defendants, of whom four were minors, all members of a joint Hindu family. The eldest defendant professes to know his father's handwriting. The father was the mortgagor. This defendant, being examined and shown the mortgage-deed, said that the signature was his father's. As far as he was concerned, this admission, in our opinion, would, under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, relieve the plaintiff of any further responsibility of proving the document. But the decision is not so clear as regards the remaining six defendants. The plaintiff in fact did intend to produce the attesting witnesses, and there was, as far as we can see, no culpable delay on his part, but on the day fixed for the hearing he said that he was ill and his witnesses were not present. Both the Courts declined to grant him any further time, and, therefore, they held that he had failed to prove the mortgage-deed. Th...
Narsinhbhat Chintamanbhat Vs. Bandu Krishna Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom231; (1918)20BOMLR495
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The present appeal, which is brought by the 3rd defendant in the suit, arises out of the same proceedings as those which have been described in the appeal just decided Ante, p. 481. The facts already noticed it is unnecessary to recapitulate. It is enough to refer to the following additional facts. In 1884 one Ramabai, the widow of a deceased coparcener in the family of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, obtained a decree for maintenance against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and another member of the family. That decree provided for payment of arrears of maintenance, and for future maintenance, and it directed that if the defendants failed to pay rogularly, then the plaintiff Ramabai might take possession of certain lands, and if the defendants failed to pay the maintenance, or to put the plaintiff Ramabai in possession of the lands, then the defendants would be liable personally, and their immoveable property would also be answerable for the decree. In 1898 R...
Vithoba Madhav Shanbhog Vs. Madhav Damodar Shanbhog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom158; (1918)20BOMLR654
Beaman, J.1. In 1903 Gidd Hegde being indebted to Vaikuntha, and Vaikuntha having obtained a decree which Gidd Hegde was unable to satisfy, Gidd Hegde sold the land in dispute to the decree-holder on condition that after the lapse of ten years Gidd Hegde or his descendants should have the right to re-purchase it within two years for the same price for which the land was sold. After the death of Gidd Hegde his son appears to have been his only descendant and on his death his mother took as heir. She then proceeded to sell the right, reserved to Gidd Hegde and his descendants in the sale-deed of 1903, to one Manj Isra, who in turn seems to have sold half to the plaintiff' No. 1 and the other half to the plaintiff No. 2.2. The question for our determination is whether on the terms of the sale-deed of 1903 and in the light of the facts and circumstances then existing, the intention of the parties was that the right reserved was to be a personal right to Gidd Hegde and his descendants or a ...
Rangbhat Ramchandrabhat Vs. Sitabai Bandbhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom174; (1918)20BOMLR338; 45Ind.Cas.584
Beaman, J.1. The point argued in this appeal arises in this way. Ramchandrabhat, the father of the appellant and of the husband of the respondent, acquired certain property in such a manner as to make it admittedly his own self-acquired property. Thereafter, the Courts below have found, by his own volition and intention he converted it from self-acquired property into joint family property between himself and his two sons, Rangbhat and Bandbhat. In 1898, after the property had thus received the impress of joint family properly, Rangbhat, the appellant, separated from his father and brother. In the partition, the Court finds, this property was taken into calculation and Rangbhat's share given him on that basis. Thereafter, Bandbhat and his father Ramchandrabhat constituted a joint Hindu family in respect of the residue of the property in their possession. On Ramchandrabhat's death Bandbhat took the . whole and on his death his widow, the respondent, takes a life-estate.2. The case for R...
In Re: Hubert Crawford
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom226; (1918)20BOMLR379; 45Ind.Cas.511
Shah, J.1. The order, the legality of which we have to consider, relates to two bonds taken under the City of Bombay Police Act of 1902. These bonds were taken under Sections 106 and 107 of the Act, whereby one Clegg undertook to appear at a certain police station on a certain day and on subsequent days as directed, and the applicant before us stood surety for him in respect of both the bonds. The learned Presidency Magistrate has found that Clegg absconded from Bombay and that the bonds were broken. On that footing he has made an order directing a partial forfeiture of both these bonds.2. The question of law which arises on this application is whether the Court of the Presidency Magistrate had any jurisdiction to direct these bonds to be forfeited under Section 514, Criminal Procedure Code. It is common ground that that is the only section, under which, if at all, the Magistrate would have jurisdiction. It is also common ground that these bonds are not taken under the Code of Criminal...
Narsingrao Konher Inamdar Vs. Bandu Krishna Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom217; (1918)20BOMLR481
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is an application in execution of a decree, and the facts and dates relevant to the appeal are these. The parties having referred their dispute to arbitration, an award was made by the arbitrators. On the 17th November 1897, the following order was made by the learned Subordinate Judge : 'The plaintiff sues to obtain a decree on an award filed with the plaint. The defendants admit the claim. I order that the award be filed and a decree passed in accordance therewith.' But the only attempt made by the Court to draw up the decree thus ordered is recorded in the following direction which was given on the 17th November 1897: ' This suit coming on for final hearing on the 17th November 1897 before Rao Bahadur Gangadharrao Vishnu Limaye, First Class Subordinate Judge, in the presence of Mr. Vithalrao Kulkarni, pleader on behalf of plaintiff and of Mr. Bhaskarrao Manerikar, pleader on behalf of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, it is ordered that the award be...
Emperor Vs. Amirsaheb Balamiya Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR42Bom406
Shah, J.1. The accused in this case has been convicted under Section 25, Clause (i), of the Indian Forest Act VII of 1878. He is found to have successfully tracked and shot a tiger without a license in a reserved forest to which the rules made by the Local Government under Section 25(i) and Section 31, Clause (j) have been duly applied.2. The case for the accused was that some of his cattle were killed by a tiger and that with a view to prevent further injury to his property he wanted to trace the tiger in the forest. Both the lower Courts have proceeded on the assumption that the accused's cattle were killed by a tiger; and from the arguments before us, it is clear that the accused's cattle were killed by a tiger and that his object in going to the forest and shooting the tiger was to prevent further injury to his property.3. In dealing with the question of self-defence, the learned Magistrate in appeal seems to me to have taken a somewhat narrow view of its scope. It may be, as the l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »