Mumbai Court December 1918 Judgments
Hanmant Kashinath Joshi Vs. Ganesh Annaji Pujari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom13; (1919)21BOMLR435; 51Ind.Cas.612
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The execution proceedings in which this appeal has been preferred were instituted by decree-holders under a decree passed in the Court of the Nyayadhish of the Sangli State for Rs. 14, 403-2-1 against Kashinath Ramchandra Joshi, the father of the appellants. The decree falls within the class of decrees mentioned in Section 44 of the Civil Procedure Code as capable of execution in British India as if passed by a Court of British India.2. The appellants applied in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Satara for the raising of an attachment which had been levied under the Sangli decree upon their ancestral family property situate in the jurisdiction of the Satara Court on the ground that the money debt in the decree against their father was tainted with illegality and immorality and therefore the sons' shares were not liable in execution.3. The learned Judge held that the appellants' father had been guilty of a breach of civil duty as trustee but that ther...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Devappa Ramappa Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR277
Pratt, J.1. This is an application for a revision of an order made by the Second Class Magistrate under Section 2 of the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act (XIII of 1859) directing the refund of money advanced. The order of the Second Class Magistrate was made on the 9th April 1918 and it was confirmed on appeal by the District Magistrate on 1st August 1918.2. A preliminary objection is taken that revision by this Court is incompetent and that the application for revision is time-barred.3. Now Section 2 of the Workmen's Breach of Contract Act is explained in the case of Emperor v. Balu Saluji I.L.R.(1908) 33 Bom. 25; 10 Bom. L.R. 1126 as divisible into two parts. The first part is an inquiry into the fact whether a breach of contract has occurred and in the event of the breach of contract being proved that inquiry concludes with an order directing either return of the advance or specific performance of the contract. The second part is an independent proceeding ensuing on disobedience of ...
Tag this Judgment!Devappa Ramappa Naik Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom158; 50Ind.Cas.492
Pratt, J.1. This is an application for a revision of an order made by the Second Class Magistrate under Section 2 of the Workman's Breach of Contract Act (XIII of 1859) directing the refund of money advanced. The order of the Second Class Magistrate was made on the 9th April 1918 and it was confirmed on appeal by the District Magistrate on 1st August 1918.2. A preliminary objection is taken that revision by this Court if incompetent and that the application for revision is time-barred.3. Now Section 2 of the Workman's Breach of Contract Act is explained in the case of Emperor v. Balu Saluji 1 Ind. Cas. 387 : 33 B. 25 : 10 Bom. L.R. 1126 : 8 Cr.L.J. 409. as divisible into in to the parts. The first part is an inquiry into the fact Whether a breach of contract has occurred and in the event of the breach of contract being proved, hat inquiry concludes with an order directing either retire of the advance. or specific performance of the contract. The second part is an independent proceeding...
Tag this Judgment!Shankarlal Tapidas Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom17; (1919)21BOMLR668; 51Ind.Cas.910
Shah J. 1. In consequence of the difference of opinion between Heaton and Hayward JJ. who heard this appeal, it has been referred to me under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure in accordance with the conclusion arrived at by the Full Bench in Bhuta Jayatsing v. Lakadu Dhansing(4) as to the procedure to be followed in such cases.2. The points of law upon which they differ have been stated thus: ' (1) Is it to be taken as implied by the pleadings in the case that the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title became the holder of the lands by a lawful alienation (2) If not, then aa a matter of law does the Sanad imply the following condition : that if the lands cease to be the endowment property of the mosque otherwise than by a lawful alienation, the Government may levy the full assessment on the lands '3. As to the first question it is not disputed before me, and both the differing judgments proceed on the hypothesis that for the purpose of this suit the plaintiff must be taken to have ac...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Hawaji Sakharam Mhalaskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom161; 50Ind.Cas.496
Pratt, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Poona withdrawing under Section 528 two cases pending before the Second Class Magistrate of Vadgaon to his own Court and then referring them to trial to the Court of the First Class Magistrate of Khed.2. The main ground on which Mr. Limaye rests his application is that these orders of transfer were made without notice to the other party. No doubt the trend of the decisions in this Court appears to have been that an order under Section 528 made without notice is illegal: Imperatrix v. Sadashiv Narayan 22 B. 549 : 11 I. D (N.S.) 947. In re Nageshwar Sitaram 1 Bom. L.R. 347, and Vedu Bapu V. Bhagwandas 5 Bom. L.R. 28. But these cases were doubted in In re Yiri 6 Bom. L.R. 856 : 1 Cr.L.J. 934, and I understand that the recent practice of this Court has been to treat want of notice as not amounting to illegality. I confess that is my view. For the section does not require issue of notice and that...
Tag this Judgment!Rangasami Gounden Vs. Nachiappa Gounden
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR640
Lawrence Jenkins, J.Sengottuvela Gounden______________________|___________________| |By his first wife By his second wife| |Nichi Gounden _____________________|______________| | Nachi Gounden, dead. |Kylasa Gounden Semba | Arthanari| Gounden __________|______ Gounden dend=Nachiappa | | | MarkammalGounden Nichiappa Nichiappa Ramasami widow3rd Defendant Gounden Gounden, dead Gounden || | Alience dead RamasamiRangasami Arthanari Gounden, deadGounden Gounden last male holderPlaintiff 1st Defendant |NachiappaGounden2nd Defendant1. This suit is brought by the plaintiff as one of the reversionary heirs entitled to one-half of the property last held by Marakammal, the widow of Arthanari Gounden, who had succeeded thereto as upon the death of her childless son, Bamasami Gounden. It was directed against 32 persons who were in possession of different pieces of the property. The suit was only contested by three defendants. The third defendant, who was only of the half blood, as the pedigree will s...
Tag this Judgment!Pratapsingh Shivsingh and anr. Vs. Thakor Shri Agarsingji Rajasangji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR43Bom778
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an action in ejectment brought by the Thakor of Gamph in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the Ahmedabad District for possession of a village called Piparia. His suit is based on the ground that the village in question forms part of the estate of Gamph, that many years ago it was granted for maintenance or jivai by one of his ancestors to a junior member of the family to be held and enjoyed so long as the grantee's male line lasted, and that on the death of the last holder named Kaliansing in 1903 without male issue, it reverted to him as the owner of the original estate under the custom attached to such fivai grants.2. The action was brought on the 15th July, 1907, against Bai Devla, the widow of Kaliansing, who was admittedly in possession of the village claiming to hold the same for her minor adopted son, who was also joined as defendant No. 2, whom she alleged she had taken in adoption shortly after the death of her husband. Devla has since died, and the...
Tag this Judgment!Pratapsing Shivsing Vs. Thakor Shri Agarsinghji Raisinghji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR496
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an action in ejectment brought by the Thakur of Gamph in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of the Ahmedabad District for possession of a village called Piparia. His suit is based on the ground that the village in question forms part of the estate of Gamph, that many years ago it was granted for maintenance or jivai by one of his ancestors to a junior member of the family to be held and enjoyed so long as the grantee's male line lasted, and that on the death of the last holder named Kalian Sing in 1903 without male issue, it reverted to him as the owner of the original estate under the custom attached to such jivai grants,2. The action was brought on the 15th July, 1907, against Bai Devla, the widow of Kalian Sing, who was admittedly in possession of the village claiming to hold the same for her minor adopted son, who was also joined as defendant No. 2 whom she alleged she had taken in adoption shortly after the death of her husband. Devla has since died, and th...
Tag this Judgment!Sreemanthu Raja Yerlagadda Vs. Rajulapati Somayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR627
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 26th November, 1914, of the High Court at Madras, which affirmed a decree, dated the 22nd November, 1912, of the Subordinate Judge of Masulipatam, by which the suit had been dismissed.2. The plaintiff is a zamindar, and he brought his suit on the 3rd of April, 1910, for a declaration that certain lands within his zamindari in the village of Ayyanki, in the Kistna District, of which the defendants were in possession, were his private lands within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (Madras Act I of 1908), in which the defendants had no right of occupancy ; for the ejectment of the defendants from those lands, and for mesne profits. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the lands in question were ryoti lands within the meaning of the Act, and that they had in them rights of occupancy and were not liable to be ejected by the civil Court.3. As denned by Madras Act I or 1908, private Jand means:-The domain...
Tag this Judgment!In Re Vasudeo Pundlik Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom79; (1919)21BOMLR274; 50Ind.Cas.491
Heaton, J.1. It appears that a complaint has been presented to the village Patil of Malwan against the Captain of a steamer. The allegation is that the Captain abused the complainant. It appears that this occurred on the steamer which was at some distance from the shore. Consequently it appears to us very doubtful whether the Patil has jurisdiction in the matter. For he only has jurisdiction under Section 14 of Bombay Act VIII of 1867 in the matter of a person charged with committing, within the limits of the village, petty assault or abuse. A mile and a half or two miles out at sea would hardly seem to be within the limits of the village.2. We think, therefore, that these proceedings should be quashed, and though we may not have power under the Criminal Procedure Code to quash them having regard to the decision in In re Dayal Kanji : (1908)10BOMLR630 , yet we think we have power to do this under the general powers of superintendence which are conferred on us by the Letters Patent of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »