Mumbai Court November 1918 Judgments
Bhagwandas Parashram Vs. Burjorji Ruttonji Bomanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR561
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of money. Many defences have been pleaded, but only one need now be noticed; it is that the transactions on which the claim rests were agreements by way of wager. At the trial several issues were framed, and the third was in these terms:-Whether the transactions mentioned in the plaint are no wagering transactions and whether the plaintiffs were not aware of the defendant's invention to deal in differences only ?2. The Trial Judge, sitting on the original side of the High Court at Bombay, found all the issues in the plaintiffs' favour, and passed a decree for the amount claimed.3. On appeal the appellate bench of the High Court agreed with the findings of the Trial Judge on all the issues but the third. On that it held in favour of the defendant, and dismissed the suit.4. It is from that decree that this appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs, and the only question is whether the plea that the transactions we...
Tag this Judgment!Daudbhai Allibhai Vs. Daya Rama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR363
Pratt, J.1. This appeal raises a point of res judicata.2. The plaintiff sued in 1903 alleging that the defendant was liable to pay assessment as enhanced by the Survey Settlement, but had failed to do so ; that he was a tenant at will and not a permanent tenant; that plaintiff had given him notice to quit and that he had not given up possession. Plaintiff, therefore, prayed for two reliefs: (1) to recover possession of the land, and (2) to recover arrears of assessment at the enhanced rate.3. Defendant in his written statement replied that he was not liable to pay enhanced assessment; that he was a permanent tenant; and that plaintiff was not entitled to recover possession.4. The following issues were raised:--(1) Whether it is proved that the defendant is a permanent tenant of the land in dispute or he is a tenant thereof at the pleasure of the plaintiff (i. e. as long as the plaintiff chooses to keep him as such)?(2) Has the plaintiff a right to take the land in dispute from the defe...
Tag this Judgment!Vaman Gururao Deshpande Vs. Krishnaji Timmaji Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom127; (1919)21BOMLR427; 51Ind.Cas.363
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain Vatan property which belonged to one Narsingrao who died in December 1910. The plaintiff claims to be the nearest heir of Narsingrao, and impleads the first defendant who claims to be the adopted son of the deceased and the 2nd and 3rd defendants who, it is said, are nearer heirs than the plaintiffs in the event of there being no adopted son,2. Narsingrao was concerned in the murder of a Mahar many years ago, and having been found guilty was transported to the Andamans. He returned about the year 1884 from his transportation, and went to Benares before returning to the Bijapur District where his property was situated, and performed the prayaschitia or penance for purification prescribed by the Hindu texts. The fact that he performed this prayaschitta is proved to our satisfaction, as it was proved to the satisfaction of the lower Court.3. The issues raised in the trial Court were whether the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Chinto Mahadeo Khandekar Vs. Madhav Ramchandra Patkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom74; (1919)21BOMLR361
Basil Scott, C.J.1. Thirty thikans of Khoti land in the jurisdiction of the Rajapur Court were held prior to 1883 by the Khandekar family as occupancy tenants. Seven of these thikans were attached and sold by Vithal Haldavnekar as mortgagee of the Khoti interest under a decree for payment of the Khot's dues which had been obtained against Yessaji Khandekar Vithal purchased the attached interests by a Benami sale and having taken a transfer obtained possession from the Khandekars. This led to litigation in which Yessaji's brothers claimed that the sale did not affect 5/6ths of the occupancy rights in these thikans.2. At that time the Khoti Act (Section 9) provided that occupancy rights should be heritable but not otherwise transferable 'unless in any case the tenant proves that such right of transfer has been exercised in respect of the land in his occupancy independently of the consent of the Khot at some time within thirty years next previous to the commencement of the revenue year 18...
Tag this Judgment!Khimji Bhimsi Vs. Chunilal Ambaidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom131; (1919)21BOMLR419
Basil Scott, C.J.1. In appeal No. 1033 of 1915 it is agreed between the parties that there is a mistake in the figure mentioned in the District Judge's judgment, and that '983', should read '938' and it may be taken that the judgment is inaccurate in that respect. Whether the judgment should stand in its amended form is a question which has to be decided in the other appeal No. 323 of 1916. Chunilal brings this suit against Nathu Shivji. Ambaidas, the father of Chunilal, and Nathu Shivji were partners in equal shares in a cotton business. The partnership was dissolved on the 3rd of November 1839, the business having resulted in a loss. On the 24th September 1900, Nathu Shivji admitted by an acknowledgment in the accounts that he was indebted to Ambaidas in the sum of RS. 1,022-12-0. The acknowledgment runs as follows:--'Cotton was pressed into bales in partnership between you and me. Therein a loss was sustained. As to the amount of loss falling to my share an account in respect thereo...
Tag this Judgment!Chinto Mahadev Khandekar and ors. Vs. Mahadev Ramachandra Patkar and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR43Bom565
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. Thirty thikans of Khoti land in the jurisdiction of the Rajapur Court were held prior to 1883 by the Khandekar family as occupancy tenants. Seven of these thikans were attached and sold by Vithal Haldavnekar as mortgagee of the Khoti interest under a decree for payment of the Khot's dues which had been obtained against Yessaji Khandekar. Vithal purchased the attached interests by a Benami sale and having taken a transfer obtained possession from the Khandekars. This led to litigation in which Yessaji's brothers claimed that the sale did not affect 5/6ths of the occupancy rights in these thikans.2. At that time the Khoti Act (Section 9) provided that occupancy rights should be heritable but not otherwise transferable 'unless in any case the tenant proves that such right of transfer has been exercised in respect of the land in his occupancy, independently of the consent of the Khot, at some time within...thirty years next previous to the commencement of the reven...
Tag this Judgment!Shridhar Madhavrao Dhopaokar Vs. Ganpati Punja Godse
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom44; (1919)21BOMLR357; 51Ind.Cas.72
Basil Scott, C.J.1. In this suit, which was filed on the 3rd of July 1913, the plaintiffs alleged that in execution of a decree in a suit of 1890 their father purchased the plaint property at an auction sale, and a receipt for possession was given by the plaintiffs to the bailiff on the 3rd of July 1901. This suit is for possession; it is filed exactly on the day the twelfth year expires. Both Courts have held that the cultivable land and the house, which are the subject of the suit, were, on the 3rd July 1901, and had for some time previously been, in the possession of the defendants 1 to 3, and that the defendants 1 to 3 were not disturbed in their possession on the date of the receipt, but that statements were made in it both by the plaintiffs and by the bailiff as to possession having been given to the plaintiffs which were entirely false. Order XXI, Rule 95, of the Code provides that ' where the immoveable property sold is in the occupancy of the judgment-debtor or of some person ...
Tag this Judgment!Dossabhai Hirchand Vs. Virchand Dalchhakam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR1
Hayward, J.1. The plaintiff firm Dossabhai Hirchand brought this summary suit as endorsees to recover the amount of Rs. 4,000 due upon a cheque drawn by the first defendant firm Virchand Dalchharam in favour of the 2nd defendant firm Hargovan Jeychand on the Bank of India, Limited. The first defendant firm pleaded that the suit as framed would not lie as the cheque had the word 'bearer' struck out and there was no substitution of the word ''order,' and that, therefore, the cheque was not negotiable within the meaning of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 2nd defendant firm did not obtain leave to defend, though one Parbhudas denied that he was a partner in the 2nd defendant firm. The plaintiff, thereupon, alleged a custom and usage of merchants whereby a cheque with the word 'bearer' struck out and without the word 'order' was regarded as an 'order' cheque and negotiable in Bombay. The 1st defendant firm replied that no such usage of merchants, even if proved, could be recognized as i...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Syed Yacoob Syed Lallamian
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR270
Pratt, J.1. The applicants in this case have been convicted of offences under Sections 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and further the applicant No. 1 has been ordered under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code to furnish security for keeping the peace.2. The application for revision in regard to the convictions and sentences has not been pressed, and in regard to applicant No. 1 it is contended that the order for security is illegal as the offence which he has committed under Section 504 is not one which involves a breach of the peace.3. In my opinion the phrase 'other offences involving a breach of the peace' includes offences which are offences because a breach of the peace has occurred or because a breach of the peace is likely to occur. This is consistent with the cases of Jib Lal Gir v. Jogmohan Gir I.L.R.(1899) Cal. 576, Baidya Nath Majumdar v. Nibaran Chunder Gope I.L.R.(1902) . Cal. 93; Kannookaran Kunhamad v. Emperor I.L.R.(1802) Mad. 469; Raj Narain Roy v. Bhagaba...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Sayed Yacoob Sayed Lallamian
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR43Bom554
Pratt, J.1. The applicants in this case have been convicted of offences under Sections 341 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and further the applicant No. 1 has been ordered under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code to furnish security for keeping the peace.2. The application for revision in regard to the convictions and sentences has not been pressed, and in regard to applicant No. 1 it is contended that the order for security is illegal as the offence which he has committed under Section 504 is not one which involves a breach of the peace.3. In my opinion the phrase 'other offences involving a breach of the peace' includes offences which are offences because a breach of the peace has' occurred or because a breach of the peace is likely to occur. This is consistent with the cases of Jib Lal Gir v. Jogmohan Gir (1899) 26 Cal. 576; Baidya Nath Majumdar v. Nibaran Chunder Gope (1902) 30 Cal. 93; Kannookaran Kunhamad v. Emperor (1902) 26 Mad. 469; Raj Narain Roy v. Bhagabat Chunder ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »