Mumbai Court September 1919 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.
Balkrishna Narayan Sawant Vs. Jankibai Sitaram Sanzgiri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR289
Shah, J.1. In this appeal, a preliminary point has been raised on behalf of the appellant that the appeal lies to the District Court, and not to this Court, and that the memorandum of appeal should be returned to him now to be presented to the District Court.2. It will be convenient to state the facts bearing on this point. One Sitaram left his native place for Benares in 1902: he has not been heard of since and is presumed to be dead. There were disputes as to his property in the hands of third persons: the claimants were his widow, Jankibai, his brother Narayen, and his nephew, Balkrishna (Narayan's son). The widow claimed as an heir, the brother, by survivorship on the footing that he and Sitaram were joint, and the nephew, under the will of Sitaram. Jankibai filed a suit in 1913 on the Original Side of ' (I) (1918) L. R. 4617 I A. 15; 21 Bom. L. R. 1148.~ the High Court against the stake-holders, to which other claimants were added as parties later on. This suit was ultimately tran...
Damodar Raghunath Karandikar Vs. Vasudeo Parsharam Ketkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR102
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for a declaration that the occupancy right respecting the plaint property was extinguished or forfeited, and that the property had become the absolute property of the Khots, and for possession and future mesne profits. The facts shortly are that defendants 2 to 6 were the occupancy tenants of the plaintiff-Khot. On the 12th January 1912 the second defendant for himself and defendants 3 and 4 purported to sell their occupancy rights to the first defendant giving him possession. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the defendants thereby forfeited their occupancy rights, and that therefore, he was entitled to possession of the plaint property. The trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. The lower appellate Court declared that the occupancy tenancy in the plaint as amended was determined, and the' appellants were entitled to recover possession. In our opinion the order of the lower appellate Court was wrong. The case is covered...
Damodar Krishna Kulkarni Vs. the Collector of Nasik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR99
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was filed by the plaintiffs alleging that they were the hereditary Kulkarni Vatandars, plaintiff No. 1 holding eight annas share and plaintiff No. 2 holding two annas eight pies share in the villages of Pimpalgaon, Baswant, of the Nasik District; that the Vahivat of the said Vatan had been carried on in their family hereditarily for a long time since the time of their ancestors; hence the plaintiffs had the right of carrying on the Vahivat; but notwithstanding this the Revenue Officers of the defendant, without taking into consideration plaintiffs' legal rights, and after using undue influence and coercion had compelled the plaintiffs to give consent to a commutation of their Vatans against the plaintiffs' will; that according to the provisions of the Vatan Act no such transaction could take place; any such act, if done, was illegal, and, therefore, the plaintiffs were not bound by the said consent, nor were their rights affected thereby. The plain...
Adiveppa Nagappa Arsingadi Vs. Toutappa Tippanna Ranganwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR94
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint property with past mesne profits for the year 1914-15, with future mesne profits and costs from the defendants. The land in suit belonged originally to one Shiddawa who had a life estate. On the 3rd of August 1911 she made a gift of her property to her daughter Laxmava. Laxmava died on the 29th January 1914, leaving a daughter who died on the 31st January 1914) leaving her husband, the plaintiff in this case, her surviving. The 1st defendant is the husband of Laxmava and defendants 2 and 3 are his sons. The plaintiff's case is that Shiddawa's gift to his wife and her daughter Laxmava operated as a valid acceleration of Laxmava's interest as the nearest reversioner at the time, and that, therefore, the property went to Laxmava's daughter and from the daughter to the plaintiff, even if that daughter was married.2. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim. It found on the 3rd issue, whether the gift ...
Emperor Vs. MohidIn Karim
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR154
Shah, J.1. The petitioners before us in this case were tried by a Bench of 2nd Class Magistrates on a charge of grievous hurt under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution evidence was heard by three Magistrates and the defence evidence was heard by only two out of the three with the result that the decision was given by the two Magistrates who had hoard the case throughout. The Magistrates in question are appointed for the District of Satara, and the Rules regulating the constitution of the Bench of Magistrates are to be found in the Notification of 30th October 1885 at page 1262 of the Bombay Government Gazette for 1885, Part I. These Rules were framed under Section 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1882 and are still in force.2. The petitioners were convicted by the Bench of Magistrates on the 13th of May 1919. They appealed to the District Magistrate, and it was urged on their behalf that the whole trial was void as it was contrary to the said Rules in so far as only two...
Emperor Vs. MohidIn Walad Karim and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom400
Shah, J.1. The petitioners before us in this case were tried by a Bench of Second Class Magistrates on a charge of grievous hurt under Section 325, Indian Penal Code; The prosecution evidence was heard by three Magistrates and the defence evidence was heard by only two out of the three with the result that the decision was given by the two Magistrates who had heard the case, throughout. The Magistrates in question are appointed for the District of Satara, and the Rules regulating the constitution of the Bench of Magistrates are to be found in the Notification of 30th October 1885 at page 1262 of the Bombay Government Gazette for 1885, Part I. These Rules were framed under Section 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1882 and are still in force.2. The petitioners were convicted by the Bench of Magistrates on the 13th of May 1919. They appealed to the District Magistrate, and it was urged on their behalf that the whole trial was void as it was contrary to the said Rules in so far as only...
Adivkppa BIn Nagappa Arsingadi Vs. Tontappa BIn Tippanna Ranganwar and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1919
Reported in: (1920)ILR64Bom255
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint property with past mesne profits for the year 1914-15, with future mesne profits and costs from the defendants. The land in suit belonged originally to one Shiddawa who had a life estate. On the 3rd of August 1911 she made a gift of her property to her daughter Laxmava. Laxmava died on the 29th of January, 1914, leaving a daughter who died on the 31st of January, 1914, leaving her husband, the plaintiff in this case, her surviving. The 1st defendant is the husband of Laxmava and defendants 2 and 3 are his sons. The plaintiff's case is that Shiddawa's gift to his wife and her daughter Laxmava operated as a valid acceleration' of Luxmava's interest as the nearest reversioner at, the Lime, and that, therefore, the property went to Laxmava's daughter and from the daughter to the plaintiff, even if that daughter was married.2. The trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim. It found on the 3rd issue whether the g...
MohidIn Karim and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1919
Reported in: 55Ind.Cas.849
Shah, J.1. The petitioners before us in this case were tried by a Bench of 2nd class Magistrates on a charge of grievous hurt under Section 325, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution evidence was heard by three Magistrates and the defence evidence was heard by only two out of the three, with the result that the decision was given by the two Magistrates who had heard the case throughout. The Magistrates in question are appointed for the District of Satara, and the rules regulating the constitution of the Bench of Magistrates are to be found in the Notification of 30th October 1885 at page 1262 of the Bombay Government Gazette for 1885, Part I. These rules were framed under Section 16 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1882 and are still in force.2. The petitioners were convicted by the Bench of Magistrates on the 13th of May 1919. They appealed to the District Magistrate, and it was urged on their behalf that the whole trial was void as it was contrary to the said rules, in so far as only t...
Murgeppa Basappa Gavannavar Vs. Kalava Golappa Totad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR91
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether a girl, a Hiudu widow, of the age of twelve who has not reached puberty could make a valid adoption. Both Courts have held that the adoption in those circumstances was invalid. As an authority paragraph 117 of Mr. Mayne's work, 8th Edn., has been cited. There Mr. Mayne says:' In Western India it is stated that a widow under the age of puberty cannot adopt.' (The authority for that is Steele, p. 48; West and Buhler, p. 998). The author continues:-' I suppose the reason for the difference is that there the adoption is the act of the widow, for which no authority, or consent, is required.' It seems to us that considering the importance of the act of adoption, it should be necessary that the adopting widow must have reached such an age of discretion that she must be able to realise the importance of her act, to make up her own mind as to the person she ought to adopt. There may be circumstances which will enable the Co...
Amrit Vaman Inamdar Vs. Hari Govind Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1919
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR275
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to recover possession of a part of Survey No. 45 in the village of Rajgoli Khurd with Rs. 100 as profits for one year from defendant No. 1 and his tenants. He alleged that the property was Watan property, and that the alienation thereof effected by his father in favour of defendant No. 1 was not valid beyond his life-time under Section 5 (1) (1918) L. R. 45 I. A. 209. (2) (1867) 4 B. H.O.R. 1, of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act, that his father died in January 1912, and that he was entitled to the possession of the land.2. The defendant No. 1 resisted the claim on the ground that under the decree on an award in Suit No. 253 of 1910 obtained by him against the plaintiff's father, he was entitled to retain possession of the land in suit until the Shake year 1852 (1930 A. D.), that it was not Watan property and that the plaintiff's father had authority to effect the alienation in his favour.3. The trial Court found that the property was Watan p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »