Mumbai Court September 1918 Judgments
Pandu Vithoji Ladke Vs. Goma Ramji Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-27-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom84; (1919)21BOMLR213; 50Ind.Cas.765
Heaton, J.1. The facts which it is necessary to set out for the purpose of our decision are these:--There is a joint Hindoo family consisting, so far as the evidence in this case tells us, of one Vithoo and his son Pandu. Vithoo, the father, purported to sell to the plaintiffs a portion of the joint family property possessed by himself and his son as co-parceners. It does not appear from the judgment in the suit what proportion the property sold was of the entire joint family property. But it was certain specified fields and we understand that there is other joint family property also. The plaintiffs say that they obtained possession of the fields which they thought they had bought and they were afterwards dispossessed. So they brought this suit against Pandu and another person to recover possession. Amongst the defendants they did not include Vithoo the father and their vendor. It is found that, though the sale purported to be of the whole of these fields, it was not a sale for the be...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Punja Godad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR247
Heaton, J.1. The Government of Bombay have appealed against the acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad of two men who were originally convicted by the First Class Magistrate of Nadiad for mischief under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and also under Section 26 of the Cattle Trespass Act. The facts broadly are these. One day cattle belonging to the two accused were found in the Nadiad Association Farm, and they did on that occasion damage, which is estimated at more than Rs. 200, to the growing crops. This farm had been troubled on previous occasions by trespassing cattle and damage had also been done and as the Farm Overseer tells us some of the cattle that came on to the farm on the particular occasion we are concerned with, were the same which had previously damaged the crops at the farm. On the previous occasions apparently the farm people had failed to seize the cattle but on this particular occasion--it was the 26th November 1917--they seized and took them to the pound...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Punjagodad and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom59; 50Ind.Cas.995
Heaton, J.1. The Government of Bombay have appealed against the acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad of two men who were originally convicted by the first class Magistrate of Nadiad for mischief under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, and also under Section 6 of the Cattle Trespass Act. The facts broadly are these. One day cattle belonging to the two accused were found in the Nadiad Association Farm, and they did on that occasion damage, which is estimated at more than Rs. 200, to the growing crops. This farm had been troubled on previous occasions by trespassing cattle and damage bad also been done and as the Farm Overseer tells us, some of the cattle that came on to the farm on the particular occasion we are concerned with, were the same which had previously damaged the crops at the farm. On the previous occasions apparently the farm people had failed to seize the cattle but on this particular occasion--it was the 26th November 1917--they seized and took them to the pound...
Tag this Judgment!The Godhra Municipality Vs. Harilal Lallubhai Soni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom36; (1919)21BOMLR255; 51Ind.Cas.262
Heaton, J.1. In this case, my learned colleague and myself are both agreed that a case is not made out for interfering with the order of acquittal. For myself I will express my opinion but I do not propose to give detailed reasons for it as I think that the point discussed, should it arise again, will have to be decided by a more definite consensus of opinion. I am disposed to think that the Municipality has power to say that a work to which it gives permission under Section 95 of the Bombay District Municipalities Act (Bombay Act III of 1901) shall be begun within a certain time. But I am doubtful whether the Municipality has power to say that a work must be finished within a given time. It is not proved in this case that the work was not begun within the time stated. It follows therefore that, in my opinion, the order of acquittal was correct. I would discharge the rule.Hayward, J.1. The accused obtained permission to rebuild his house on the 22nd October 1915. This permission purpor...
Tag this Judgment!Bhiva Bhika Chokekar Vs. Babu Balshet Bobhate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom66; (1919)21BOMLR350; 51Ind.Cas.7
Hayward, J.1. The plaintiff sued the six defendants for partition of his half share in certain lands in his possession on the strength of a sale-deed of 1879. The six defendants joined in one written statement denying his possession as purchaser. The trial Court, however, found the purchase proved and gave a decree for partition with the exception of a plot of land entered in the name of defendant No. 6 in the Survey Records. The first appellate Court modified the decision by including in the partition the plot standing in the name of the sixth defendant. In second appeal it has been urged that this plot ought to be excluded, on the ground that the entry of the name of defendant No. 6 in the Survey Records was conclusive as to her title, under Section 21 of the Khoti Settlement Act.2. It is unfortunate that we have not in evidence the particular entry of the sixth defendant's name in the Survey Records. All we have is the document, Exh. 26, in which the validity of the sale-deed was ex...
Tag this Judgment!Jana Appa Sutar Vs. Rakhma Narayan Badiger
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1918
Reported in: (1919)21BOMLR208
Shah, J.1. The question of law arising in this second appeal is whether as between a full sister and a half-sister the former is the preferential heir or both of them are heirs to their deceased brother under the Mitakshara. Both the lower Courts have answered it in favour of the full sister.2. In support of the case for the half-sister it is urged that neither in the Mitakshara nor in the Vyavahara Mayukha is any preference shown to the full sister over the half-sister and that the preference of the whole to the half-blood under the Mitakshara is confined to brothers and nephews as pointed out in Samat v. Amra I.L.R.(1882) 6 Bom. 394 and Vithalrao v. Ramrao I.L.R.(1899) 24 Bom. 3173. There is apparently no decided case in this Presidency directly bearing on the point. The position of the sister aa an heir has been considered in several cases : and it is not disputed before me that under the Mitakshara as under the Mayukha the sisters would be heirs, and that they would come in after t...
Tag this Judgment!Chimabai Vs. Dhula Kuppa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom59; (1919)21BOMLR281
Mariten, J.1. This is an adjourned summons under Rule 451 of the Bombay High Court. Rules to compel a purchaser at a Court-sale of immoveable property to pay the balance of his purchase money. The principal questions that arise are: (1) whether the particulars and conditions of sale are misleading and did in fact mislead the purchaser; and (2) whether the parties were ever ad idem inasmuch as the purchaser says he thought he was buying property free from all encumbrances, and the applicant says that all he of the Commissioner intended to sell were the interests of the first mortgagee and the mortgagor in the property subject to the rights of the second and fourth mortgagees.2. The summons is taken out in Suit 360 of 1911, which was originally a redemption suit brought on the 5th May 1911 by one Chimabai a widow to redeem the 1st mortgagees defendants 1 and 2 and their transferee defendant 3. Subsequently defendants 4 and 5 were added as parties in respect of a subsequent mortgage of St...
Tag this Judgment!Bhuta Jayatsing Vs. Lakadu Dhansing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1918
Reported in: AIR1919Bom1; (1919)21BOMLR157; 50Ind.Cas.715
Basil Shah, J.1. In consequence of the difference of opinion between Beaman and Heaton JJ., the following point of law has been referred to me for decision under Section 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure:--Whether a plaintiff who has obtained a decree in his favour in the trial Court and gone into possession under it, and has been put out of possession under the decree of the first Court of appeal reversing the trial Court's decree (no claim for restitution having at this stage been preferred against him by the defendant), and who has succeeded in the Court of Second Appeal which has restored the judgment of the trial Court, can claim any benefit under Section 144 in respect of the time he was dispossessed between the decrees of the first and second appeal Courts 1. 2. I am of opinion that the plaintiff can claim such benefit under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The words of the section are plain and cover the case of the plaintiff claiming the benefit of the section under...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Haji Abu Vs. Khatubai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom89; (1919)21BOMLR85
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit relates to the succession to the estate of Haji Abu Haji Habib who died at Bombay on the 30th November 1914 intestate. He left him surviving a widow, the 2nd defendant, two married daughters, one of whom has since died, the survivor being the plaintiff, and one son, the first defendant.2. The plaintiff claims to be entitled as a daughter to 7/32 her share on the footing that Mahomedan law is applicable: she is supported by the representatives of the deceased daughter who would under Mahomedan law be entitled also to 7/32.3. The 1st defendant contends that Hindu law applies and that under that law he is entitled to the whole estate subject to the maintenance of the deceased's widow. In the lower Court the widow, his step-mother, supported his contention though under Mahomedan law she would be entitled to 4/32 of the estate. She has not appeared in this appeal.4. The estate is valued at 2 lacs and consists of five immoveable properties in Bombay valued at Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Haji Abu Vs. Khatubai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1918
Reported in: 51Ind.Cas.513
Basil Scott, C.J.1. This suit relates to the succession to the estate of Haji Abu Haji Habib, who died at Bombay on the 30th November 1914 intestate. He left him surviving a widow, the 2nd defendant, two married daughters, one of whom has since died, the survivor being the plaintiff, and one son, the 1st defendant.2. The plaintiff claims to be entitled as a daughter to 7/32, her share on the footing that Muhammadan Law is applicable: she is supported by the representatives of the deceased daughter who would under Muhammadan Law be entitled also to 7/32,3. The 1st defendant contends that Hindu Law applies and under that law he is entitled to the whole estate subject to the maintenance of the deceased's widow. In the lower Court the widow, his step-mother, supported his contention though under Muhammadan Law she would be entitled to 4/32 of the estate. She has not appeared in this appeal.4. The estate is valued at 2 1/2 lacs and consists of five immoveable properties in Bombay valued at ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »