Mumbai Court October 1918 Judgments
In Re: Vithal Bhimrao Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom174; (1919)21BOMLR266
Hayward, J.1. A man called Shidappa sued a man called Annaji and another for debt. Annaji pleaded part payment and the man called Vithal swore to it. Shidappa got a decree in which it was held there was no part payment. He also obtained sanction to prosecute the man Vithal for perjury, which was granted by the Subordinate Judge.2. Shidappa then transferred his decree to one Tammaji who proceeded to prosecute Vithal for perjury before the First Class Magistrate. Vithal has objected to this prosecution on two grounds. The first ground is that there was no document of sanction beyond the order itself passed by the Subordinate Judge, and it was urged that a separate formal document was necessary as described in the case of Queen-Empress v. Rachappa I.L.R. (1888) 13 Bom 109. But it does not seem to me that it was ever intended in that case to lay down that a prosecution would be illegal in default of any such formal document and resting merely upon the actual order of the Subordinate Judge....
Tag this Judgment!Gulam Gous Mia Khot Vs. Shriram Pandurang Jairamrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom78; (1919)21BOMLR353; 51Ind.Cas.79
Basil Scott, C.J.1. Mia Khot in 1895 mortgaged the property in suit to Jairam, the father of the defendants 1 and 2. In 1901 the mortgagor being dead his widow purported to sell the equity of redemption to Jairam. Jairam subsequently sold his interest in the property to the defendant 3.2. The sale by the mortgagor's widow could only transfer her 1/8th share as a Mahomedan widow to the mortgagee: the remaining 28/32 in the equity of the redemption belonged to the plaintiff's, the son and daughters of the deceased. The present suit was filed on the 21st of April 1914 for redemption. The defence is that the suit is as to all the plaintiffs' interests except that of plaintiff No. 2 barred by limitation because Jairam obtained possession at the time of the sale, the plaintiff No. 3 was a major at that date and the plaintiff No. 1 became a major in May 1908 and did not sue for redemption or possession within three years. The lower Court has held the suit barred as regards the plaintiffs 1 an...
Tag this Judgment!Sunderabai Vs. the Collector of Belgaum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1148
Jonh Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated August 1, 1913, of the High Court at Bombay, which varied a decree, dated April 16, 1910, of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum.2. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought on February 22, 1909, in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum by the plaintiffs, who are appellants here. They allege that the property in suit was inalienable; that Lingappa Jayappa, who had purported to dispose of that property by his will of June 6, 1906, and a codicil of August 13, 1906, had no power to alienate the property; and that the plaintiff, Jayappa Lingappa, was the validly adopted son of Lingappa Jayappa; and they claimed a declaration that Lingappa Jayappa deceased had no power to make a will dated June 6, 1906, and a codicil dated August 13, 1906, and that no right accrued to the defendants under the will and the codicil; a declaration that the plaintiff, Jayappa Lingappa, was the adopted son of Lingappa ...
Tag this Judgment!Kering Rupchand and Co. Vs. G.B. Murray
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom32; (1919)21BOMLR143
Marten, J.1. These suits raise an important question, viz., whether the pay of a British Officer in the Indian Army can be attached under the Civil Procedure Code.2. The question arises in execution in three suits, namely, a High Court suit No. 651 of 1917, a Small Causes Court suit No. 475/18039 of 1913, and a civil suit No. 413 of 1913 in the Poona Court. The decrees in the two latter suits have been sent to this Court for execution. The plaintiffs in the first two suits are the same. The defendant in each suit is a Major G. B. Murray. He is, and at all material dates has been, an officer in the Supply and Transport Corps of the Indian Army, and at the present time he is Commandant of the 58th Pack Mule Corps stationed at Quetta.3. In the first-mentioned suit the decree was made on the 9th October 1917, and, on the 1st December 1917, the plaintiffs obtained an order under Order XXI, Rule 48 from the Acting Prothonotary, Mr. Malabari, attaching a moiety of Major Murray's pay. Under th...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Revanshidappa Vs. Shidramappa Revanshidappa Dhansheti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom107; (1919)21BOMLR217; 50Ind.Cas.736
Basil Scott, C.J.1. Revanshidappa died on the 22nd February 1911 leaving two widows, Basava and Gaurava. Basava was the first married, and on the evidence had attained puberty soon after the marriage of Gaurava to her husband. Gaurava was married by Mohtar marriage, being already a widow, whereas Basava was married by Lagan according to the approved form. The deceased left property worth about Rs. 15,000. The plaintiff claims as a son adapted to the deceased Revanshidappa by his second widow Gaurava on the 6th November 1911. The 1st defendant was adopted by Basava in July 1912. According to the recognized law in this Presidency the senior widow, that is the widow married first, has a preferential right to adopt. In this Presidency she does not require any special authority from her husband or from her husband's Sapindas, but the junior widow, unless the adoption by her is consented to by the elder widow, does require a special authority from her husband. The earliest statement of the l...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Haji Gulam Mahomed Azam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR261
Heaton, J.1. The accused, a landlord, has been found guilty of abetting the offence of wrongful restraint in that he caused the door of complainant's room which opened outward, to be blocked up. By so doing he prevented complainant from entering his room by the ordinary door, that is, he prevented him from going in a direction in which it is said he had a right to go. If the facts and if the rights of the complainant are as stated and implied in this brief statement, then the conviction is correct.2. The case is not one of the kinds that usually invite our consideration in revision. The Magistrate was quite competent to ascertain the facts and to make the required inferences from them. I do not propose, therefore, to say more on that aspect of the case.3. But owing to the circumstances that the accused is a Bombay landlord and the complainant had been one of his tenants and still remained in occupation of one of the rooms in the landlord's premises, the discussion has touched points of...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Gulam Mahomed Azam Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom97; 51Ind.Cas.193
Heaton, J.1. The accused, a landlord, has been found guilty of abetting the offence of wrongful restraint in that he caused the door of complainant's room which opened cut ward, to be blocked up. By so doing he prevented complainant from entering his room by the ordinary door, that is, he prevented him from going in a direction in which it is said he had a right to go. If the facts and if the rights of the complainant are as stated and implied in this brief statement, then the conviction is correct.2. The case is not one of the kind that usually invites our consideration in revision. The Magistrate was quite competent to ascertain the facts and to make the required inferences from them. I do not propose, therefore, to say more on that aspect of the case.3. But owing to the circumstances that the accused is a Bombay landlord and the complainant had been one of his tenants and still remained in occupation of one of the rooms in the landlord's premises, the discussion has touched points o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›