Mumbai Court July 1918 Judgments
Rama Santu Randive Vs. Daji Naru Randive
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom85; (1918)20BOMLR947
Hayward, J.1. The only question pressed in argument before as in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff's claim for the land in suit is barred by an award decree between his predecessor-in-interest, a widow, and the defendant claiming by a will from the last male owner. It has been contended on behalf of the defendant that the claim is so barred relying upon the principle laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Katama Natchiar v. The Rajah of Shivaganga (1863) 9 M.I.A. 539 in which their Lordships ruled at page 604 that a decree fairly obtained against the widow would bind reversioners. That principle was followed by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the subsequent cases of Mussumat Bhagbutti Daee v. Chowdry Bholanath Thakoor and , Jugol Kishore v. Maharajah Jotindro Mohun Tagore and was extended to a daughter holding a limited estate in the case of Huvrinath Chatterji v. Mohunt Motkoor Mohun Gaswami .2. The contention was not accepted by the First Class Subordinate Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmantram Radhakisan Vs. Shivnarayan Asuram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom123; (1918)20BOMLR970
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The question referred to the Full Bench is as follows:-When a dispute to which a minor is a party has been submitted to arbitration out of Court, and award made upon such submission has been brought into Court under clause 20 of the Second Schedule, Civil Procedure Code, and the Court has been asked to file it and thereafter pass a decree upon it, neither party objecting, is not the Court bound to sanction this agreement to have the award filed and a decree passed upon it, as for the benefit of the minor and so also certify the decree 1 and if the Court fails to do so, is not the minor entitled to the protection of Order XXXII, Rule 7, Civil Procedure Code ?2. It is necessary to read this question with the main facts in the suit, namely, that a reference to arbitration was made, or agreed to, by a mother on behalf of her minor son, and after the award was published, the mother on behalf of the son applied under clause 20 of the Second Schedule of the Civil Procedure...
Tag this Judgment!Rani Parbati Kunwar Vs. the Deputy Commissioner
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR1095
John Edge, J.1 This is an appeal from a decree, dated the 2nd April, 1915, of the Board of Revenue for the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh, which set aside a decree, dated the 7th October, 1914, of the Court of the Commissioner of Lucknow, and restored a decree or order, dated the 4th June, 1914, of the Court of the Deputy Commissioner of Sitapur.2 The suit in which this appeal has been brought was instituted in a Court of Revenue which alone had jurisdiction to entertain the suit, a civil Court having no jurisdiction in the matter. In the suit the plaintiffs claimed a decree for the possession of the entire village mauza Bandhia Kalan, situate in pargana Nighasan, in the district of Kheri, by resumption of the Muafi, and in the alternative that the rent might be fixed at a proper amount under Section 107 G of Act XXII of 1886 (the Oudh Rent Act, 1886), and other reliefs which need not be referred to. The Deputy Commissioner of Sitapur, before whom the suitcame for trial, did not gra...
Tag this Judgment!Mohunt Parmanandra Das Goswami Vs. Kripa Sindhu Roy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR580
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal against two decrees, dated the 4th June, 1913, of the High Court at Calcutta, which modified a decree, dated the 22nd March, 1909, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack.2. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack by the appellants on the 5th October, 1907.3. The plaintiffs, who are the appellants here, claim to be, with the defendants Lakimani Ama and Bhagabat Deb Thakur, proprietors of revenue free lands in Orissa. Kripasindhu Roy who will be in this judgment referred to as the first defendant, is the principal defendant. The plaintiffs claim a declaration that the lands in dispute in this suit are their free behali lands held and enjoyed by the plaintiffs and the defendants Lakimani Ama and Bhagabat Deb Thakur; a declaration that except the share of 11 gandahs, 3 karas, 7 dantis, 10 biswas, 9 gandahs, 1 kara of the Darpanarayan Math purchased by the first defendant, he has no rig...
Tag this Judgment!Raja Durga Prashad Singh Vs. Tribeni Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR569
Phillimore, J.1. The suit to which this appeal relates is brought to recover certain lands formerly held under ghatwali tenure, in the zemindary of Kharakpur in Bengal.2. These lands were originally held by the zemindar under the ruling power upon terms that the zemindar should perform by himself or his tenants the duty of guarding the ghats or passes against marauders, and preserve the peace of the district, and discharge other police services.3. In the year 1838 the Government, being of opinion that these duties could be; and indeed were being, better performed by their own officers, and that the Government was entitled to resume these lands, as the services for the performance of which they were originally held were no longer needed, claimed to resume them accordingly.4. Litigation ensued, and the Government was successful in the Courts in India, but the decision was reversed on appeal to the Privy Council, and the Raja zemindar was quieted in his possession.5. The case was decided ...
Tag this Judgment!Kaikhushru Bezonji Capadia Vs. Shrinibai Bezonji Capadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR130
Phillimore, J.1. The suit to which this appeal relates was brought in order to settle certain questions of construction arising on the will of a wealthy Parsi inhabitant of Bombay, Bezonji Nanabhoy Capadia, who died on April 3, 1906, leaving his wife, two sons, and several daughters surviving him. The will is dated April 10, 1905. It is long and elaborately drawn, and contains thirty-three paragraphs.2. The testator appoints executors and trustees. He makes certain specific gifts. He directs his executors, 'in the event of' the death of his wife, which must mean 'on' the death of his wife (see Penny v. Commissioner for Railways 1900 A.C. 628, 634, to expend a certain sum of money in providing the expenses of her funeral and the customary rites and ceremonies. He makes certain provisions for a daughter on the occasion of her marriage, and he leaves annuities to be paid to the wife, the daughters, and certain other relatives during the wife's life, and he directs that the residuary incom...
Tag this Judgment!Kaikushru Bezonji Nanabhoy Capadia Vs. Shirinbai Bezoni Capadia and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1918
Reported in: (1919)ILR43Bom88
Phillimore, J.1. The suit to which this appeal relates was brought in order to settle certain questions of construction arising on the will of a wealthy Parsee inhabitant of Bombay, Bezonji Nanabhoy Capadia, who died on the 3rd April, 1906, leaving his wife, two sons, and several daughters surviving him. The will is dated the 10th April, 1905. It is long and elaborately drawn, and contains thirty-three paragraphs.2. The testator appoints executors and trustees. He makes certain specific gifts, he directs his executors, 'in the event of' the death of his wife, which must mean 'on' the death of his wife (see Penny v. Commissioner for Railways) [1900] A.C. 628 to expend a certain sum of money in providing the expenses of her funeral and the customary rites and ceremonies. He makes certain provisions for a daughter on the occasion of her marriage, and he leaves annuities to be paid to the wife, the daughters, and certain other relatives during the wife's life, and he directs that the resid...
Tag this Judgment!Moru Narsu Gujar Vs. Hasan Fattekhan Jummal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom105; (1918)20BOMLR929
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sues for possession of Survey No. 87, pot No. 1, from the defendant 2 or in the alternative for possesion after redemption of a mortgage or mortgages upon it now vested in the defendant 2.2. The plaintiff's father advanced Rs. 30 upon mortgage of the land in question from one Mariam, one of two female co-owners of the property. The mortgage was unregistered.3. A decree was obtained on this mortgage in Suit No. 183 of 1899. The property was put up for sale by the Court in execution and on the 9th of January 1901 was purchased with the Court's permission on account of the 2nd plaintiff, then a minor, who claimed as heir of the original mortgagee.4. Formal possession under the purchase was obtained on the 19th of April 1901. Actual possession could not be obtained, for the land was in possession of the father of the defendant 1 under a subsequent but registered mortgage by Mariam or her co-owner Zuleika. Two further mortgages in favour of the 1st def...
Tag this Judgment!Shivbai Babya Swami Vs. Yesu Cheoo Nayakin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom175; (1918)20BOMLR925
Hayward, J.1. The plaintiff Yesu got an ex parte decree for Rs. 86 against the defendant Shivbai in 1906. Shivbai's house was sold in execution of that decree in 1910, but she succeeded in subsequently getting the ex parte decree set aside and in having the case retried. The plaintiff Yesu succeeded in the retrial in obtaining a decree against the defendant Shivbai for a sura of Rs. 87 in 1914. But Shivbai then applied to have the previous sale of the house in execution set aside. That application was granted by the Court of first instance, but was rejected by the Court of first appeal which appears to have treated the application as one under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. Shivbai has accordingly come to get that decision set aside in second appeal.2. The substantial point argued has been whether in the circumstances stated the previous sale of the house in execution could be set aside, and reliance has been placed for the finding in the negative upon the case of Shivlal v. S...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Mahadev Jamsandekar Vs. Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom30; (1919)21BOMLR27
Heaton, J.1. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by the District Judge of Ratnagiri on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The plaintiff has appealed to us.2. We have before us only the plaint, the written statement and the judgment of the District Judge, and as the question is one of jurisdiction and the facts have not been determined, we have for the purpose of our decision to assume the truth of the facts stated in the plaint and then determine whether the Courts have jurisdiction or not.3. The plaintiff's cause of action, to put it briefly, is that some silver belonging to him of considerable value was seized and confiscated by the Customs authorities and that he was subjected to a penalty of Rs. 1,000 and that these things were done under the cover of Sections 167, 182, 188 and 191 of the Sea Customs Act (VIII of 1878). The plaintiff says these things were wrongfully done.4. There are two ways in which the question of jurisdiction can be looked at. The fi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »