Mumbai Court April 1918 Judgments
Sri Madana Mohana Ananga Bheema Deo Kesari Gajapathi Vs. Sri Purushoth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR1041
Viscount Haldane, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras which affirmed a decree of the District Judge of Ganjam. The main question to be decided relates to the validity of the appellant's adoption.2. The suit is concerned with an impartible zemindari in the district of Ganjam called Chinnakimidi or Pratapgiri. In 1868) the holder of the zemindari was Raja Adikonda Deo, who was a member of a joint Hindu family subject to the Mitakshara law. The following pedigree shows the relationship of the parties to the suit to each other :-Chandeamani Deo|--------------------------------------| | |Adikonda Deo Raghunadha Deo Lokhana or(died 23rd, (died). Lakshmana DeoNovember, 1868) |(married Kuudana | (Dead)Devi (alive) | || | |----------------- | || | | |Brojo Plaintiff | |Kishor Doo, Appellant-, Vaishnava Brajarajafirst whose Deo Deoadopted adoption 18th (whoseson is (died Septem- legitimacy(died 3rd in question. ber, is questioned,)September, 1906),1906)...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Kalyan Das Vs. Sheikh Maqbul Ahmad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR864
Sumner, J.1. In 1863 Debi Das lent 7,700 rupees to Ram Bux on a usufructuary mortgage of his half-share in a mouzah, called Lodha Mai, in the District of Etah. Debi Das died a good many years ago, and the present appellants, the plaintiffs in the suit, are his representatives in interest. A suit was begun in 1877 for redemption of this mortgage, and a decree was made on payment of 6,988 rupees, which sum was brought into Court. Debi Das appealed on the ground that this sum was not enough, and it was increased by a further sum of 8,956 rupees. While the appeal was pending he had managed to take the money out of Court, and the mortgagors had then got possession. They paid, however, no more, and accordingly in 1879 their redemption suit stood dismissed. Debi Das then applied to be, and was replaced, in possession and, having sued for mesne profits during the time he was out of possession, he got a decree in 1881, in execution of which the Court sold the mortgagors' equity of redemption at...
Tag this Judgment!Mewa Singh Vs. Basant Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-18-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR232
Sumner, J.1. The sole question in this appeal is whether the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces were wrong in holding that the plaintiffs had not proved their case. They reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge; but as he appears to have failed to deal with the real question, his conclusion need not be pursued. The plaintiff's sought declarations of their right to inherit certain properties in the districts of Amritsar and Saharanpur, which were in the defendants' possession. They claimed to be the reversionary heirs of one Tika Nihal Singh, who owned these properties till his death in 1864. The life-interests of his surviving widows did not determine till 1907. The question was one of fact and the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs. Their counsel frankly admitted that their case must rest on certain family pedigrees--the other evidence, which had been put in, being inadmissible or inconclusive.2. There were fifty-nine plaintiffs, and nearly twenty other pa...
Tag this Judgment!Maharajah Ranjit Singh Bahadur Vs. Maharaj Bahadur Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR506
Buckmaster, J.1. This is a consolidated appeal against seven decrees of the High Court of Calcutta dated the 5th March, 1913. These decrees were made in seven suits instituted by the respondent on the 10th and 20th September, 1904, against the appellant and others claiming to recover possession and settlement of certain chowkidari chakeran lands in villages of which the appellant is the zemindar. It is unnecessary to deal with the history and vicissitudes of the litigation, as the only question that now arises for determination is whether the suits were barred by the Indian Limitation Act, 1877. This statute, as is well known, fixed different periods of limitation within which suits of different characters should be brought. The appellant contends that Article 113 of the 2nd schedule of that statute regulates the rights of the parties in the present case, while the respondent asserts that the period is fixed by Art. 144 of the same schedule. By the terms of the Schedule, Art. 118 is st...
Tag this Judgment!P.W. Monie Vs. the Rev. Robert Scott
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom88; (1918)20BOMLR839; 47Ind.Cas.642
Kajiji, J.1. This is a case stated for the opinion of the Court under Section 90 and 0. XXXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs, who are the Municipal Commissioner and the Municipal Corporation for the City of Bombay, seek to recover from the defendant, who is the present acting Principal of the Wilson College, municipal property taxes in respect of the buildings known as hostels belonging to that College. The Wilson College is affiliated to the University of Bombay. Section 21 (1) of the Indian Universities Act, 1904, provides that a College applying for affiliation to an University must satisfy the Syndicate of the University, inter alia, ' (a) that the buildings in which the College is to be located are suitable and that provision will be made in conformity with the Regulations for the residence in the College or in lodgings approved by the College of students not residing with their parents or guardians and for the supervision and physical welfare of students' ; '(f) t...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Jagannath Joshi Vs. Vasudeo Raghunath Oka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom68; (1918)20BOMLR826; 47Ind.Cas.629
Shah, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff for an injunction ordering the defendant to remove the trees overhanging his land and for damages. Both the lower Courts have allowed the plaintiff's claim as to the injunction, and directed that the defendant should remove and cut off the portions of the trees in suit which overhang the land of the plaintiff at his expense, failing which the plaintiff is to be at liberty to cut them down at defendant's costs. The damages were not proved and the claim as to damages was consequently disallowed.2. In the appeal before us two points have been urged by Mr. Nijsure : first, that, as no damages are proved, no injunction could be granted ; and, secondly, that the defendants should have been allowed to prove the alleged local custom as to his right to retain the trees overhanging the plaintiffs land.3. As to the first point I have no hesitation in disallowing the appellant's contention. It is clear on the authorities, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dadoo Bhaoo Vs. Dinkar Vishnu Aphale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom96; (1918)20BOMLR887; 47Ind.Cas.745
Stanley Batchelor Kt., Acting C.J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by an Inamdar to eject the defendants. One of his pleas was that the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 were his yearly tenants. The plaintiff's position as an Inamdar was conceded, but his claim to own the Mirasi or occupancy rights in these lands was denied by the defendants, and the only question which we have to decide is whether the plaintiff's claim to these Mirasi rights should be allowed.2. The first Court held against the plaintiff upon this point, but that decree was reversed on appeal, and the present appeal is brought by the defendants 2 to 5. It seems clear that prior to 1880, the plaintiff's position as Inamdar was accepted, and gave rise to no disputes. But in 1880 the Survey Settlement was introduced into this village, and in the Settlement Register the present appellants were entered as the Khatedars. Since 1880 admittedly they have been cultivating the lands, paying only a sum equivalent to th...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Madhav Laxman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom117; (1918)20BOMLR607
Shah, J.1. The facts relating to this case are briefly these. The accused who are the Kulkarni and the Patil of the village of Bhandiwad were committed to the Court of Session on the 15th August 1917 on a charge of cheating three persons. They were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Dharwar with the aid of assessors. The evidence and the opinion of the assessors were recorded. The case was then adjourned for judgment.2. On the 10th September 1917 the learned Additional Sessions Judge made an order under Section 532 of the Criminal Procedure Code quashing the commitment and directing a fresh enquiry. This order was originally brought to the notice of this Court by the District Magistrate; but the Court refused to entertain the reference made by him against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge. The order made by the Additional Sessions Judge having been brought to the notice of this Court, a rule was issued with a view to determine the legality of this order.3. We have now h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›