Mumbai Court February 1918 Judgments
Dodbasappa Ramlingappa Nargund Vs. Basawaneppa Shivlingappa Sintre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom171; (1918)20BOMLR783
Shah, J.1. The facts material to the point arising in this second appeal are briefly these: One Shivlingappa died leaving a widow, Chinava, and two daughters Nilava and Gangava surviving him. The widow made a gift of the property inherited by her from her husband to Nilava on the 8th December 1910. She subsequently adopted the present plaintiff on the 14th December 1911.2. The plaintiff sued to recover the property given to Nilava by way of gift from her heirs, who were the defendants. The defendants contended that Nilava had acquired an absolute and indefeasible title to the property before the adoption.3. The trial Court held that the gift was not binding on the plaintiff and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The lower appellate Court confirmed the decree of the trial Court.4. The point raised in the appeal before us relates to the validity of the gift.5. It is not disputed that the alienation by way of gift cannot be supported on the ground of legal necessity.6. It is urged, however, o...
Tag this Judgment!imambandi Vs. Sheikh Haji Mutsaddi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR1022
Ameer Ali, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Calcutta, dated the 30th August, 1911, which affirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Saran awarding to the plaintiffs possession of a share in certain landed property situated in that referred to.2. The property in suit belonged originally to one Ismail Ali Khan, a wealthy Mahomedan inhabitant of the Sub-Division of Siwan in the Saran District. The plaintiffs allege that on his death in March 1906 he left him surviving three widows and several children, and that from one of these widows, named Enayet-uz-Zohra, acting for herself and for her two minor children, they purchased the share in suit for the possession of which they brought the present action.3. It appears that shortly after Ismail Ali Khan's death the contesting defendants 1 to 7 applied to the Revenue Courts for mutation of names (as proprietors) in the Collector's records, and, as usually happens in these cases in India, especially in ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdullabhai Lalji Vs. the Executive Committee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom200; (1918)20BOMLR639
Kemp, J.1. This is a reference from the Resident at Aden in an appeal in Suit No. 113 of 1914 filed in the Court of the Resident requesting the opinion of the High Court under Section 8 of the Aden Act II of 1864 on certain questions relating to an assessment to property and sanitary tax prayed by the plaintiffs in the suit to be set aside.2. It appears that in 1909 the firm of Abdullabhoy and Joomabhoy Lalji, whom I shall hereafter call the plaintiff's, obtained from Government a lease of certain lands in the Sheikh Othman District of Aden for the purpose of constructing saltworks thereon at an annual rent of Rs. 7,000 for the land and a royalty of eight annas per ton of salt exported. The plaintiffs proceeded to erect a factory for crushing salt on the land. The works first commenced to yield salt in the official year 1911-12.3. The defendants are the assessing authority for the Aden Settlement under two Notifications dated 26th March 1909 levying certain taxes and laying down rules ...
Tag this Judgment!Malkarjun Mahadev Belure Vs. Amrita Tukaram Dambare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom142; (1918)20BOMLR762; 47Ind.Cas.152
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting, C.J.1. You claim as the heir of Shantabai and not as one entitled to possession on the death of a female property on the death of a Hindu female. This Article, as the decided cases show, is restricted to suits by a plaintiff whose right and title to sue for possession occurs upon the death of a female holding the limited woman's estate, The point was so decided in Azam Bhuyan v. Faizuddin Ahamed I.L.R. (1886) Cal. 594 by Mr. Justice Wilson and Mr. Justice Ghose and these learned Judges, in considering the argument now under notice, observed that: 'Article 140 (of the Limitation Act) dealing with remaindermen, reversioners, and others, deals with a class of persons who claim under a title quite independent of the particular limited estate upon which the remainder, reversion, or other estate is dependent. And we think the case is the same under Art. 141...We think it refers to persons who claim under an independent title on the death of a Hindu or Mahomeda...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimangauda Konapgauda Patil Vs. Hanmant Rangappa Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom206; (1918)20BOMLR411
Beaman, J.1. The facts of this case are in my opinion substantially the same as those in the case of Dev Gopal Savant v. Vasudev Vithal Savant I.L.R. (1887) Bom. 371 and absolutely identical with those in the case of Shrinivas Hanmant v. Gurunath Shrinivas I.L.R. (1890) Bom. 527. That being so, I should have thought it unnecessary to add a word, the case being covered by such high authority, but for the use made of other cases in argument by Dewan Bahadur Rao, for the appellant, one of these being a recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Dinkar v. Krishnaji Sakharam I.L.R. (1915) Bom. 118 : 17 Bom. L.R. 967. Such cases, whether in this Court or as in the case of Chinna Seetayya v. Krishnavanamma I.L.R. (1896) Mad. 435 in other High Courts, when reduced to the bare decision they give, appear to me to amount simply to saying that in every case there is an appeal from the Collector acting under Section 54 to the Court under whose decree he has been making that partition. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimangauda Konapgauda Patil Vs. Hanmant Rungappa Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR42Bom689
Beaman, J.1. The facts of this case are in my opinion substantially the same as those in the case of Dev Goal Savant v. Vasudev Vithal Savant (1890) 15 Bom. 527 and absolutely identical with those in the case of Srinivas Hanmant v. Gurunath Shrinivas (1890) 15 Bom. 527. That being so, I should have thought it unnecessary to add a word, the case being covered by such high authority, but for the use made of other cases in argument by Dewan Bahadur Rao, for the appellant, one of these being a recent decision of this Court in the case of Ramchandra Dinkar v. Krishnaji Sakharam (1915) 40 Bom. 118. Such cases whether in this Court or as in the case of Chinna Seetayya v. Krishnavanamma (1896) 19 Mad. 435, in other High Courts, when reduced to the bare decision they give, appear to me to amount simply to saying that in every case there is an appeal from the Collector acting under Section 54 to the Court under whose decree he has been making that partition I think that that view is in direct co...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Rajindra Bahadur Singh Vs. Rani Raghubans Kunwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR1075
John Edge, J.1. The suit in which these consolidated appeals have arisen came on appeal before the Board in 1905. The Board which heard the appeal finally decided several important questions which were in dispute between the parties, but did not finally dispose of some other questions which related to portions of the property which were in dispute in the suit, and in respect of the questions which were not then finally decided advised His Majesty that these questions should be remanded to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh with power to that Court to remit the case to the Court of the Subordinate Judge for inquiry. The judgment of the Board is reported in 32 I.A. 203. The Court of the Judicial Commissioner made on the 4th March, 1907, a decree which dealt with some of the questions in dispute, and on the 21st January, 1909, a further decree, which dealt with the remaining questions in dispute, and from those decrees these consolidated appeals have been brought. The original...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Khima Rukhad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom186; (1918)20BOMLR395; 45Ind.Cas.501
Shah, J.1. In this case the accused were charged with the theft of certain cattle. The First Class Magistrate, who tried the accused, acquitted them and directed the cattle to be given to the accused No. 1, Khima Rukhad. The complainant applied to the Sessions Court at Ahmedabad as regards the order relating to the disposal of the property. The learned Sessions Judga modified the order of the trial Court and directed that the cattle be returned to the complainant. The present application is made to this Court to revise the order of the Sessions Judge.2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction in this case under Section 520, Criminal Procedure Code, to modify the order of the trial Court. The argument is that the Court of Session is neither a Court of appeal nor a Court of revision in this case within the meaning of Section 520, Criminal Procedure Code. In my opinion it is not a Court of appeal, as an appeal from the order of acquittal woul...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Khema Rukhad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR42Bom664
Shah, J.1. In this case the accused were charged; with the theft of certain cattle. The Firsts Class Magistrate, who tried the accused, acquitted them and, directed the cattle to be given to the accused No. 1, Khema Rukhad. The complainant applied to the Sessions Court at Ahmedabad as regards the order relating to the disposal of the property. The learned Sessions Judge modified the order of the trial Court and directed that the cattle be returned to the complainant. The present application is made to this Court, to revise the order of the Sessions Judge.2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction in this case under Section 520, Criminal Procedure Code, to modify the order of the trial Court. The argument is that the Court of Sessions is neither a Court of appeal nor a Court of revision in this case within the meaning of Section 520, Criminal Procedure Code. In my opinion it is not a Court of appeal, as an appeal from the order of acquittal...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpati Ranu Kolapure Vs. Sevakram Mansukhram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR461
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the learned District Judge's judgment satisfies theterms of Order XLI, Rule 31, of the Civil Procedure Code. The judgment in question is in this language:The issues are as stated by the Subordinate Judge and my findings are as stated by him. After reading the judgment of the Subordinate Judge and hearing the learned pleaders on behalf of the appellant and respondent, I find no reason to disagree with the learned Subordinate Judge whose judgment is conclusive, and cannot be seriously assailed by the appellant. The decree of the Subordinate Judge is accordingly confirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs.2. Now I have no desire to add unnecessarily to the clerical labours which devolve upon appellate Judges or to suggest that any judgment is improved by prolixity. At the same time we are, in my opinion, bound to see that the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code are satisfied, and in this c...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »