Mumbai Court July 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.
Laxman Ganesh Rajendra Vs. Keshav Govind Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom82; (1918)20BOMLR918
Heaton, J.1. This was a case in winch the respondents sued to recover possession of half of a certain property on partition. They were met by a plea that the suit was time-barred. The facts necessary to be borne in mind in determining this question of limitation are that the defendant or his predecessors had been in possession of this property for some time (how long is immaterial) prior to 1899, and that on the 8th of July 1899 their possession became adverse to the plaintiffs who filed their suit only on the 8th of September 1912. Apparently therefore on the facts so presented the plaintiff's' suit was out of time : for the defendant had been in adverse possession of the property claimed for more than twelve years. The plaintiffs, however, pleaded that they could take the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and this plea was found in their favour both by the trial Court and the Court of first appeal. The defendant has come here in second appeal and maintains that Section 14 o...
Mallappa Parappa Hospeti Vs. Gangava Gangappa Hospeti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom85; (1919)21BOMLR17
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover possession of certain land as the next reversionary of the deceased Bhimappa.2. The defense was that Bhimappa's widow had adopted Gangappa, and that Gangappa had alienated the property to the other defendants.3. The plaintiff's claim must fail if the adoption is valid. Both the lower Courts have held the fact of the adoption proved, but they have found it to be invalid according to Hindu law.4. Gangappa, the person adopted, was before adoption the first cousin (father's brother's son) of Bhimappa's father. The lower Courts have held the adoption to be invalid on the ground that Gangappa was in the position of an uncle to the deceased Bhimappa and that his adoption is opposed to the theory, upon which the law of adoption is based. The lower appellate Court has relied upon a passage in Steele's Law and Custom of Hindu Castes at Page 44 and certain observations in Mandlik's Hindu Law at Page 474.5. In the appeal before us it has been c...
In Re: Murlidhar Bhagwandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom70; (1918)20BOMLR1009
Heaton, J.1. The Chief Presidency Magistrate finding himself in difficulties in a case which he had to deal with under the Indian Extradition Act, XV of 1903, has referred certain questions to us which he is empowered to do by section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The questions are four in number, but the one of chief importance arises out of the controversy, to put it briefly, whether a person accused of cheating in the Hyderabad State can be made the subject of a warrant under section 7 of the Indian Extradition Act. If we read the Act by itself, no doubt on the point arises, because cheating is an extradition offence as appears from the Schedule to the Act. But the attention of the Chief Presidency Magistrate was called to the Extradition Treaties between the Governor General of British India and the Hyderabad State, and having read the Treaties and referred to Section 18 of the Act, a doubt did arise in his mind. It was this : Cheating is an extradition offence under the Ac...
Paremeshwaribai Nagesh Ganpaya Vs. Raghavendra Chidanand Kaikeni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom141; (1919)21BOMLR203
Baseil Scott, C.J.1. The plaintiff sues for possession of immoveable property of which the owner prior to 1901 was Shantraurti.2. On his death his near relations were Laxmi his mother, the defendant his sister, and Padmavati his sister's daughter. The defendant was living an immoral life with a paramour and was outcaste.3. On the 3rd of March 1903, Laxmi who had succeeded to her son's property made it over to Chidanand, father of the plaintiff, for the benefit, on their attaining majority, of Padma and the plaintiff who had been selected as her bridegroom. In consideration of the handing over of the property Chidanand agreed to pay (1) a debt of Rs. 100 due to one Radhabai on a deed passed by Shantmurti ; (2) the marriage expenses of Padma ; (3) the obsequies of Lakshmi on her death and certain anniversary and other ceremonies.4. On the 19th of July in the same year the defendant reciting the document of the 3rd of March 1903 and the marriage of her daughter Padma to the plaintiff stat...
Lala Balla Mal Vs. Ahad Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR558
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the Chief Court of the Punjab, dated the 13th January, 1914, varying a decree of the District Judge of Amritsar, dated the 31st July, 1911, and decreeing in part the claim of the present appellants.2. The plaintiff Balla Mal is the father of the plaintiff Ibhar Das. They carry on the business of sellers of gold lace in the city of Amritsar, and are in addition money-lenders. They are members of a joint Hindu family.3. The deceased defendant was a Mahomedan. He was born in the year 1863, and was therefore in the year 1892 twenty-nine years of age. At the latter date he had been employed for six years as permanent copying clerk in the office of the Divisional Judge of Amritsar at a salary of 40 rupees per mensem. The defendant's father was head man of the Kunjar or prostitute caste.4. The action out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs upon certain promissory notes admittedly drawn up and executed by the ...
Gulab Raiji Vs. Bai Tejbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom28(2); (1919)21BOMLR707
Basil Scott, C.J.1. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent to recover possession of certain Bhagdari lands comprised in a sale made by her to the defendant on the 25th January 1910 on the ground that the sale being of an unrecognized portion of a peta bhag was illegal and void under the provisions of the Bhagdari Act. The sale by the plaintiff' took place at the same time as the sale by a woman named Tebai to the defendant of other portions of the peta bhag to which the plaintiff's sale related, and they have been held to be one alienation though evidenced by the two documents, They related, taken together, to the whole of Survey Nos. 34, 77, 113, 119 and a portion namely 2 acres and 20 gunthas of Survey No. 157, and the Survey Numbers enumerated comprised the whole of the peta bhag or recognised subdivision of a bhag. The remaining portion of Survey No. 157 was actually in possession of the defendant, the transferee under the two sale-deeds. It has been hold by the learned Jud...
Govind Ramaji Ganjale Vs. Savitri Rama Thosar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom93; (1918)20BOMLR911; 47Ind.Cas.883
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.2. The first question is whether the plaintiff is the heir of Manjoola. That depends upon the question whether Manjoola was married by theasura form of marriage or by an approved form. If she was married by the asura form, then the plaintiff is her heir. It is held by both Courts that dej was paid on Manjoola's marriage, and that the defendant postponed that marriage because the dej had not been paid. They, therefore, came to the conclusion that the dej was paid to the defendant as a bride price. The marriage was, therefore, in the asura, form.3. It has been held by the lower Courts that the appellant was in a fiduciary relation to his nieces. They were brought up in his house and acted under his influence. The Courts also held that the price paid under the sale-deed as a consideration for the transfer of the plaintiff and her sister's property to the defendant was inadequate.4. Assuming the plaintiff is the heiress of Manjoola it is contended that claiming throug...
In Re: Aparao Jhaverilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom141; (1918)20BOMLR1018
Heaton, J.1. We have heard this matter argued at great length but to put the case in its briefest form it is this.-A complaint of forgery was made by the District Judge of Ahmedabad to the District Magistrate. It was made because a certain will which had come before the District Judge in probate proceedings was believed by him to be a forgery. In his complaint which took the form of a letter to the District Magistrate, he did not mention any offenders, but he suggested that in the interests of justice there should be a prompt investigation. Now this letter fulfils in every particular the requirements of the definition of 'complaint' in the Criminal Procedure Code. On receiving it the District Magistrate, who may possibly not have realized for the moment that he was dealing with a complaint, did not send for the complainant, the District Judge, and examine him on oath, a thing that no doubt he ought to have done. But the omission to do this, as one can see, in a case of this kind, makes...
Emperor Vs. Waman Dinkar Kelkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1918
Reported in: (1918)20BOMLR998
Hayward, J.1. These are two appeals against convictions recorded at a trial with assessors by the Sessions Judge of Satara. One appellant is the Inamdar of Patan. The other appellant was the Mamlatdar of Patan. The Inamdar has been convicted of having brought a false claim for rent against his tenants, certain Chambhars, in the Revenue Court of the Mamlatdar. He has also been convicted of having used as genuine a Kabulayat which had been altered by forgery for the purpose of establishing his claim against those Chambhars in the proceedings in the Revenue Court. He has also been convicted of having abetted a corrupt judgment which had been passed against those Chambhars by the appellant Mamlatdar in that Court. The convictions were concurred in by both the assessors and he was sentenced to concurrent sentences which had the practical effect of sending him to prison for five years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 209, 471, 219 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Mamlatda...
Waman Dinkar Kelkar and anr. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom103; 51Ind.Cas.257
Hayward, J.1. These are two appeals against convictions recorded at a trial with Assessors by the Sessions Judge of Satara. One appellant is the Inamdar of Patan. The other appellant was the Mamlatdar of Patan. The Inamdar has been convicted of having brought a false claim for rent against his tenants, certain Chambhars, in the Revenue Court of the Mamlatdar. He has also been convicted of having used as genuine a kabuliyat which had been altered by forgery for the purpose of establishing his claim against those Chambhars in the proceedings in the Revenue Court. He has also been convicted of having abetted a corrupt judgment which had been passed against those Chambhars by the appellant Mamlatdar in that Court. The convictions were concurred in by both the Assessors and he was sentenced to concurrent sentences, which had the practical effect of sanding him to prison for five years' rigorous imprisonment under Sections 209, 471, 219 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Mamlatd...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »