Mumbai Court March 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.
Raj Kumar Jagannath Prashad Singh Vs. Syed Abdullah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR851
Dunedin, J.1. In this suit Syed Abdullah sues the Raja of Deo for possession of a village called Badam. The plainti is purchaser from a dancing girl, Rajeshwari Koer, who is the natural daughter of the late Raja Bhikham of Deo, father of the present Raja, defendant.2. The history of the matter is this : Raja Ehikham having got into involved circumstances, his estate was put under management under the provisions of the Chota Nagpur Encumbered Estates Act, which had been made to apply to Deo by a special Act. The manager appointed under the Act one Bhuan Lal, who had, in terms of the Act, powers of sale, put up to public auction the village of Badam. It was bought by Kashi Nath Singh for the sum of 2,000 rupees. As a matter of fact, Kashi Nath had been put forward by the Raja himself, who provided him with the money. No conveyance was executed by Bhuan Lal in favour of Kashi Nath. The management came to an end in 1896, and the Raja was restored to his estate. In 1897, the Raja, who had e...
Het Ram Vs. Shadi Ram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR798
Viscount Haldane, J.1. The material point in this appeal which comes from the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces, Allahabad, lies in short compass. The question in the suit was whether property in mortgage to the respondent Shadi Ram, as to which he had sought to obtain a decree for sale under Order XXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, should, when sold, be treated as sold subject to an alleged prior right of the appellant under an earlier mortgage. This earlier mortgage was dated the 25th February, 1880; Shadi Ram's mortgage was dated the 15th October, 1881.2. The appellant had become the successor-in-title to the mortgagors, and it is assumed, for the purposes of this appeal, that he had also acquired such title as remained to the mortgagee under the earlier mortgage. In 1892 the prior mortgagee, whose name was Lachman Das, brought a suit on his mortgage and in 1895 obtained a decree absolute for a sale under Section 89 of the Transfer of Property Act, 188...
Lala Kanhai Lal Vs. Lala Brij Lal and Musammat Kausilla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR1048
John Edge, J.1. These are consolidated appeals, front decrees, dated the 15th June, 1915, of the High Court at Allahabad, made in appeals from decrees of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Shahjahanpur. Thero were two suits in each of which Lala Kanhai Lal and his brother, Ram Sarup, were the plaintiffs. Lala Kanhai Lal is now the appellant in those consolidatedappeals. Ram Sarup's rights were established and are not now in question; he is not a party to these appeals. In one of these suits Lala Brij Lal and his daughter, Musammat Ram Kali, were defendants, they are now respondents to one of these appeals. In the other suit Musammat Kausilla and Lala Wham Lal, who claims through her, wero the defendants, they are the respondents to the other of these appeals. In each suit Lala Kanhai Lal cluimod as a roversioner to ono Bahadur Lal, who died in 1883, Bahadur Lal was a member of a Hindu joint family descended from one Balak Ram.The pedigree of the joint family so far as it is now mate...
In Re: Maganlal Khemchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom151; (1918)20BOMLR600
1. We think that under the Village Police Act the Police Patel, to whom a commission has been issued under Section 15 of the Act, has no power to inflict any fine on the complainant for a false complaint.2. We, therefore, set aside the order made by the Village Patel directing the complainant to pay a fine of rupees two, and direct the fine to be refunded to the complainant....
Gopal Jayvant Shirgaonkar Vs. Shriniwas Vithal Pai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR830; 47Ind.Cas.635
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sued the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in ejectment as upon a forfeiture for the recovery of the demised land and arrears of rent primarily from defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff's lessees, and thereafter generally, should they not be liable, from whomever the Court should find responsible. The 4th defendant is merely a tenant of defendant No. 3, and we are not concerned with her. The plaintiff's father originally let the land permanently to the grand-father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in turn assigned this permanent lease to defendant No. 3. Now, along with the assignment of a lease go all covenants running with the land and there remain only in the assignor personal covenants or obligations which may be enforced against him by the lessor. By such assignments privity of estate is at once established between the original lessor and the assignee of the lease; and should the lessor accept rent from the assignee, then privity of con...
Abdul Rahim Mahomed Narma Vs. Municipal Commissioner for City of Bomba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR937
Sumner, J.1. By the City of Bombay Municipal Act, 1888, Section 289, the Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bombay has under his control all public streets within the city, and may from time to time widen, extend, or otherwise improve any such street, or cause the soil thereof to be raised, lowered, or altered, subject to the sanction of the Corporation in certain events. By Section 297 he may prescribe a line on each side of any public street, and, subject to receiving the necessary authority, may from time to time prescribe a fresh line in substitution therefore, and the line so prescribed shall be called 'the regular line of the street.' If the line is so drawn that any land not vesting in the Corporation falls within it, the Commissioner may, by Section 299, take possession of it on the Corporation's behalf, which has the effect of acquiring it for the Corporation, and thereupon the land so acquired shall thenceforward be deemed a part of the public street, and the former owner...
Gopal Jayvant Shirgaonkar Vs. Shriniwas Vithal Pai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR42Bom734
Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sued the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in ejectment as upon a forfeiture for the recovery of the demised land and arrears of rent primarily from defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff's lessees, and thereafter generally, should they not be liable, from whomever the Court should find responsible. The 4th defendant is merely a tenant of defendant No. 3, and we are not concerned with her. The plaintiff's father originally let the land permanently to the grandfather of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in turn assigned this permanent lease to defendant No. 3. Now, along with the assignment of a lease go all covenants running with the land and there remain only in the assignor personal covenants or obligations which may be enforced against him by the lessor. By such assignments privity of estate is at once established between the original lessor and the assignee of the lease; and should the lessor accept rent from the assignee, then privity of cont...
Chandrappa Basawantrao Desai Vs. Bhima Dassappa Manikeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom115; (1918)20BOMLR779; 47Ind.Cas.330
Beaman, J.1. This is one of a fairly common and always interesting class of cases. Where ancient grants in this country are brought into controversy at the suit of the grantor seeking to resume, the law has in this Presidency at any rate been clear, simple and invariable ever since I have had any practical knowledge of it. All grants of that kind for the purpose of applying this law fall into two main categories: grants of lands burdened with service, and grants of office to which lands are annexed by way of remuneration instead of or along with cash. The former grants are always irresumable, unless the grantor can show that they have been specially conditioned so as to enable him to resume for failure to perform these services, or at his own will to discontinue the services and resume the lands. Grants under the second category are always resumable, unless the grantee can show that they have been specially conditioned otherwise so as to prevent their resumability. The first category h...
Emperor Vs. Esufalli Abdul Hussein
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1918
Reported in: AIR1917Bom192; (1918)20BOMLR601
Shah, J.1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the petitioner on a charge of defamation.2. The complainant filed a complaint against the petitioner for having called him a rogue before the police on the 5th of July 1917. The defamatory matter referred to in the charge framed against the accused is that 'the complainant was a rogue and had swindled a relative out of Rs. 1,000.' For the purposes of this case the charge should have been confined to the allegation in the complaint, and in the evidence of the complainant and his son. Taking the charge as restricted in that manner, we have to consider whether the conviction of the accused is proper.3. It appears that the accused had made an application to the police against one Allibhai to prevent a breach of the peace, and Allibhai had made a similar application to the police against the accused and some others. It was in connection with these applications that the parties were before the police on the 5th of July. ...
Vishveshvar Vighneshvar Shastri Vs. Mahableshvar Subba Bhatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom79; (1918)20BOMLR767
Beaman, J.1. I doubt whether the true point was present to the mind of the learned Judge below. He appears to have thought that the question could be answered from the language of Sections 6, Clause (b), 109 and 111, Clause (g) of the Transfer of Property Act. Even were that so I should still doubt whether the answer he has given is right. Section 6, Clause (b) is no more than a special case of a mere right to sue. For if the mere right of re-entry on breach of condition subsequent is transferred, without the reversion, the person having it could only use it for the purpose of a suit to enforce forfeiture, without. gaining any right or interest in the property so demised and forfeited. Section 109 seems to me to have no bearing on the point. Section 111, Clause (g) need not mean any more than that the lessor must give notice of intention to enforce forfeiture, or if the breach has occurred after transfer of the reversion, the transferee must give notice. That is how I read it, and if I...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »