Mumbai Court February 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.
Shriniwas Appacharya Jahagirdar Vs. Jagadevappa Kallappa Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom216; (1918)20BOMLR708
Shah, J.1. It is unnecessary in this case to express any final opinion as to whether a second appeal lies to this Court because even if no appeal lay against the order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge on the 25th of November 1915 it would be open to us to consider the question of jurisdiction, which arises in the case, under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. We have, therefore, considered the question of jurisdiction on its merits.2. In this case an order was made on the 15th November 1915 directing execution of the decree to be transferred to the Collector. Subsequently an application was made by the mortgagee-defendant for permission to bid at the auction and also for permission to set off' the decretal amount against the sale price. The Court was of opinion that it had no power to grant any such permission after the execution was transferred to the Collector.3. It is argued before us that even when the execution of the decree is transferred to the Collector, the Cour...
Advi Fakirappa Chalwadi Vs. Fakirappa Adiveppa Chalwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom168; (1918)20BOMLR703
Beaman, J.1. The general rule of jurisprudence by which the existence of a child as a legal entity is dated from his conception and not from his birth will, on examination, be found to have been intended, I believe in almost every case, for the benefit of the child, and this somewhat fictional extension of the notion of birth to have been devised in order to connect him directly with his father both for the purposes of inheritance and legitimacy as at the time of his conception, where, if the date of his birth should be the date of his coming into being as a legal entity, consequences less favourable to him would necessarily fellow. Here we have to deal with the converse case, although it is easy to decide it if the principle I have stated be the true principle. It is, as far as so know, a new case, upon which no Court has yet adjudicated, and it involves a double fiction, if indeed it be a fiction, to say that in law a child is born when he is conceived. For here it is complicated by ...
Bala Genuji Navale Vs. Balvant Laxman Ghatpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR454
Stanley Batchelor, Acting C.J.1. This is a second appeal, and it is very necessary to bear in mind the facts upon which it arises. The plaintiff is the Vatandar Joshi of the village of Bhavdi. The defendants are non-Brahmins, residents of Bhavdi. The 1st defendant, it appears, belongs to an association called the Satya Shodhak Samaj, one of whose tenets is that it is desirable that the villagers should themselves conduct their own ceremonies, and not call in Brahmin priests to do so. In accordance with this tenet, when the 1st defendant's mother died, the 1st defendant himself, with the assistance of his friend, the 2nd defendant, performed over the body certain non-Brahmanical ceremonies, or, if I may so call them, lay rites. No fees were paid to the 2nd defendant, and the whole conduct of the ceremonies was in reality with the 1st defendant himself. This is clearly the character of the ceremonies as it was understood by the learned trial Judge, Mr. B.M. Butti, himself a Hindu. Upon t...
Dakas Khan Vs. Ghulam Kasim Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR1068
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. In the District of Dera Ismail Khan there are two villages, Mauzah Darakki and Mauzah Sher Ali. Of the first the plaintiffs are the proprietors, of the second the defendants.2. The dispute is between the proprietors of these two villages as to the ownership of village common lands measuring upwards of 7,989 acres. The plaintiffs contend that these lands belong to them jointly with the defendants in proprietary right by virtue of ownership of the two villages ; the defendants maintain that they are the exclusive proprietors. There was a subsidiary question as to the omission of certain provisions from the Wajib-ul-arz relating to these common lands, but on this there is no longer any contest.3. On the 10th May, 1912, the District Judge of Dera Ismail Khan decided on both points in the plaintiffs' favour. On the 13th January, 1913, this decree was varied by the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province, who dismissed the plaintiffs' claim of joint ownersh...
Bala Genuji Navale and anr. Vs. Balwant Laxman Ghatpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom208; (1918)ILR42Bom613
Stanley Batchelor, Acting C.J.1. This is a Second appeal, and it is very necessary to bear in mind the facts upon which it arises. The plaintiff is the Vatandar Joshi of the village of Bhavdi. The defendants are non-Brahmins, residents of Bhavdi. The 1st defendant. it appears, belongs to an association called the Satya Shodhak Samaj, one of whose tenets is that it is desirable that the villagers should themselves conduct their own ceremonies, and not call in Brahmin priests to do so. In accordance with this tenet, when the 1st defendant's mother died, the 1st defendant himself, with the assistance of his friend, the 2nd defendant, performed over the body certain non-Brahmanical ceremonies, or, if I may so call them, lay rites. No fees were paid to the 2nd defendant, and the whole conduct of the ceremonies was in reality with the 1st defendant himself. This is clearly the character of the ceremonies as it was understood by the learned trial Judge, Mr. B.M. Butti, himself a Hindu. Upon t...
Anant Narayan Deshpande Vs. Ramchandra Gangadhar Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom224; (1918)20BOMLR418
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The present applicant, who was the 1st defendant in the original suit, has obtained a Rule to show cause why he should not be allowed to appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council against our judgment of the 7th February 1917. The suit was filed to obtain1 possession of certain property, and for an injunction restraining the 1st defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's possession. The only contested matter with which we are now concerned, is the adoption of Datto by Savitri, his aunt. It appears that in 1864, Savitri wont on pilgrimage with her brother Dadambhat and his nephew Datto, and in February 1864, she purported to adopt Datto, who, according to her account, was given in adoption by Dadambhat. In 1879, Datto, a married man, had a son, who is the present applicant, the 1st defendant. There was prolonged litigation concerning the validity of this adoption during the years 1882 and 1888. Ultimately in 1891, Savitri again went ...
Ganesh Amrit Dhokrikar Vs. Rangnath Manohar Pansare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom106; (1918)20BOMLR413
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought for a declaration that the alleged adoption of the 1st defendant by the 2nd defendant Yamunabai was invalid, and for an injunction restraining the 1st defendant from using the name of the alleged adoptive father Amrit. The genealogy is given at the beginning of the trial Court's judgment. Amrit, the husband of Yamunabai, died in 1903. In December 1911, his widow gave birth to a child, the offspring of adultery, as the lower Courts have hold. On the 15th June 1911, the adoption of the 1st defendant by Yamunabai was made. The plaintiff, who is a daughter of Yamunabai, objects to the adoption that inasmuch as the adopting widow was unchaste at the time of the adoption, the adoption is invalid. In the Court of trial the plaintiff's suit was dismissed, that order being made by reason of the trial Court's finding upon the first two issues, namely, that the plaintiff was not entitled to bring this suit,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›