Mumbai Court March 1918 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Somya Hirya Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR629
Shah, J.1. This appeal has been set down for further orders in view of the letter received from the Government of Bombay, inviting our attention to the repeal of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 471 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Luancy Act of 1912 and of the last twelve words of Sub-section (1) of the same section by Act X of 1914, to a letter of the Government of India referred to in the preamble of the Government Resolution No. 6484 of the l6th of September 1913, to Section 24 of the Lunacy Act (IV of 1912) and to Circular No. 76 B of the Criminal Circulars of this Court and asking us to pass final orders.2. We have heard the learned Government Pleader in support of the view expressed in the letter. In the course of the argument the Government Pleader has pressed for an order that the appellant in this case be ordered to be transferred to the Lunatic Asylum at Thana or such other asylum as may have accommodation for him after the necessary arrangements have been made.3....
Tag this Judgment!Bharma Shidappa Bhore Vs. Balaram Sakharam Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom72; (1918)20BOMLR836; 47Ind.Cas.639
Beaman, J.1. In my opinion the Courts below were right in holding this suit barred. The plaintiff's adoption was challenged in 1901 and his rights were clearly interfered with as a result of that litigation. That is plain from the frame of the present suit in which he seeks to have it declared that he is not bound by the decrees in the former suit. It is, therefore, in my opinion, clearly a case within the principle of Jagadamba's case (Jagadamba Choudhrari v. Dakhina Mohun . That case was made the foundation of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Shrinivas v. Hanmant I.L.R. (1899) Bom. 260 F.B. and although there have been two later decisions of the Privy Council in the cases of Thakur Tirbhuwan Bahadur Singh v. Raja Bameshar Bakhsh Singh (1900) L.R. 33 IndAp 156 : 8 Bom. L.R. 722 and Umar Khan v. Niaz-ud-din Khan (1011) L.R. 39 IndAp 19 : 14 Bom. L.R. 182 which may appear to conflict with the principle of Jagadamba's case, it was pointed out by a Bench of this Court in the case of...
Tag this Judgment!Nijalingappa Nijappa Halagatti Vs. Chanabasawa Satavirappa Nesari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom84; (1918)20BOMLR895; 47Ind.Cas.751
Stanley Batchelor Kt., Acting C.J.1. This was a suit to redeem a mortgage. The mortgagee, who had gone into possession, claimed to be entitled to recover upon redemption the costs of a certain lasting improvement which, as he alleged, he had made in the property. The property mortgaged was agricultural land, and the lasting improvement claimed by the mortgagee was the sinking of a well in this land. Admittedly the well was sunk, and though the exact effect of the sinking of it on the character of the land has not been determined, it appears from the judgment of the trial Court that there is good reason to suppose that the profits of the land were increased by reason of the sinking of the well. The mortgagee's claim on this head has been disallowed by both the lower Courts, and this appeal is consequently brought by the mortgagee, who contends that, on the facts found, he ought to be held entitled to cast upon the mortgagor the reasonable costs incurred by him in the digging of the well...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Joyti Prashad Singh Deo Bahadur Vs. Kumud Nath Chatterji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR856
Viscount Haldane, J. 1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Fort William, in Bengal, affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan. The respondents as plaintiff's brought a suit to recover 6,848 rupees 8 annas, being the amount of patni rents for the years 1902-1910, paid by thorn, as they alleged, although not due, in order to save their lands from sale under the powers conferred on zemindars by Section 14 of Regulation VIII of 1819.2. The appellant, on whose behalf as having rights conferred on a zemindar, it had been proposed to put the power of sale in force, contended, in the first place, that the money could not now be recovered, on the ground that even if not legally due it was paid voluntarily, or, if otherwise than voluntarily, as the result of proceedings in which the respondents had not chosen to defend themselves, and which consequently could not be reviewed. In the second place, he contended that the amount paid was due under the provisions of 'Th...
Tag this Judgment!Basudeo Roy Vs. Mahant Jugul Kishwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR1088
Ameer Ali, J.1. These two consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Calcutta, bearing date the 22nd July, 1913, arise out of two suits brought by the plaintiff respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhangah on the 8th July, 1907. The object of both suits was to recover possession of certain landed property alleged to have been improperly alienated during the plaintiff's minority by one Chattar Pandey, purporting to act as his guardian.2. The facts on which the two actions are based are fully set forth in the judgment of the High Court. It is not necessary, therefore, to give more than a bare outline.3. The plaintiff-respondent is admittedly the present Mahant of the Bairagi Asthal of Lowthwa, in the district of Darbhangah. His predecessor, Janki Das, died in 1894. Before his death he appears to have appointed the plaintiff (his nephew by blood relationship) his successor to the office of Mahant, and it is alleged, and not controverted, th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ramrao Vishvanath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom91; (1918)20BOMLR620
Shah, J.1. We have heard an interesting argument in this appeal. The question involved in the appeal is narrow, and the facts are few and undisputed.2. Under Section 305 of the City of Bombay Municipal Act (Bom. Act III of 1888) several house-owners in the first and second cross Hanuman lanes were required by the Municipal Commissioner to level, metal, drain and light the two streets in the manner described in the written notices. The house-owners refused to carry out the work which they were required to do under the notices with the result that they were prosecuted under the Municipal Act.3. The learned Presidency Magistrate came to the conclusion that the two cross lanes were not private streets, but public streets within the meaning of the Act, and on that footing acquitted the accused. The present appeal is preferred by the Government of Bombay, and the correctness of the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court is impugned before us.4. It is an admitted fact that there is a sower ...
Tag this Judgment!Hargovind Fulchand Vs. Naja Sura
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom73; (1918)20BOMLR872; 47Ind.Cas.726
Shah, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this second appeal are few and undisputed. The plaintiff obtained an instalment decree on the l6th September 1910 against the defendants, who are Talukdars. The first instalment became payable on the 1st April 1911, and in consequence of the default in payment the whole amount became payable on that day. The plaintiff presented an application for execution on the 1st April 1914, but it was rejected on the 15th June 1914 as the certificate of the managing officer required by Section 29E of the Gujarat Talukdars'Act was not produced. Subsequently the plaintiff applied to the managing officer for a certificate in August 1914 and obtained a certificate on the 29th August 1914. He then made the present application for execution on the 28th February 1916 accompanied with the certificate of the managing officer.2. Both the lower Courts have dismissed this application on the ground that it has been made more than three years after the amount became...
Tag this Judgment!Hansraj Laddashet Vs. Anant Padmanabh Bhatt
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom134; (1918)20BOMLR954
Shah, J.1. The question of law that arises in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by the provisions of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The plaintiff filed his suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Kumta in the District of Kanara. The suit relates to a public Hindu temple known as the Gopal-krishna temple of Gore. The plaintiff claims to be the representative of the original donor, Damodar Sheth, who purchased certain lands from one Ramkrishnabhatta and endowed the temple therewith, and to be interested in the property dedicated to the temple. He also claims to be a Muktesar appointed by the Temple Committee duly constituted for the Kumta Taluka under the Religious Endowments Act, XX of 1863, read with Bombay Act VII of 18G5. The defendants Nos. 1 to 7 are the representatives of Ramkrishnabhatta, the original owner of the lands, and defendants 8 and 9 are, the representatives of another family, who with the defendants 1 to 7 cla...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Anant Virupax Peerant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom215; (1918)20BOMLR604
Shah, J.1. The facts which have given rise to this application are briefly these:A gold Sari belonging to the complainant was stolen. This Sari was converted by the thief into gold bangles and the gold bangles were sold by the thief on the 12th of April 1917 to the present petitioner Anant. The thel't of the Sari was committed in March 1917. The petitioner paid Rs. 1.84-4-0 for the gold bangles to the thief. Subsequently he turned the gold bangles into gold and sold it in different parts. In the course of the investigation relating to the. theft, the petitioner was asked to produce Rs. 184-4-0 which sum was before the Court when the theft case was decided. The petitioner was examined as a witness in the case. The trial Magistrate made an order under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code directing this sum to be paid over to the complainant whose gold ornament was stolen, In appeal the order made by the trial Magistrate has been confirmed.2. In the application before us it is argue...
Tag this Judgment!Karbasappa Goolappa Naregal Vs. Kallava Goolappa Naregal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom122; (1918)20BOMLR823; 47Ind.Cas.623
Beaman, J.1. On the point of arrears of maintenance the case-law, to which we have been referred, yields, as far as I can see, no definite principle upon which all cases of the kind can be decided. The most that can be said of it, I think, is that the highest authority sanctions a very large discretion in Courts dealing with claims for arrears of maintenance to grant or withhold those arrears with special reference to the urgent need and necessities of the widow, and this amounts virtually to saying that every such case must be decided upon its own facts. It is very clear that as soon as the widow satisfies the Court that she was in want at the time at which she was entitled to maintenance, provided that time is within the period of limitation, the Court might in any given case award her arrears to that extent, and that would be quite independent of any demand on her part. In other words, while a demand is allowed to be prima facie evidence of need on the widow's part, it is not in a d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »