Mumbai Court December 1920 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.
Dattatraya Keshav Deshpande Vs. Tukaram Raghu Chorage
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom17; (1921)23BOMLR376; 61Ind.Cas.572
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The facts of the case are set out in the referring judgments from which it appears that the plaintiff claiming to be the Vatandar for the time being, asked for possession from the defendant who was a mortgagee from the previous Vatandar, on the ground that the alienation could not hold good beyond the life of the mortgagor. The Collector was of opinion that the alienation was good as against the applicant, and therefore, dismissed the application. The question referred to us is, whether, after the Collector, on an application by a Vatandar to declare that a particular alienation is null and void, has refused to make an order that the alienation is null and void, the party aggrieved can file a suit in a civil Court against the alienee in respect of that alienation. It was decided by a Bench of this Court in Somappa v. Naglingappa (1917) S.A. No. 879 of 1915 (Unreported), that an order or decision by the Revenue Authorities that an alienation which had been ch...
Fakirappa Veerbhadrappa Vs. Savitrewa Sangappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR482
Shah, J.1. The first question referred to us is whether a Hindu widow has power after her remarriage to give in adoption a son by her first husband. This reference has become necessary in view of the conflicting decisions in Panohappa v. Sanganbaaawa I.L.R.(1899) Bom. 89 1 Bom. L.R. 543. and Putlabai v. Mahadu I.L.R.(1908) Bom. 107: 10 Bom. L.R. 1134. I feel clear that the question should be answered in the negative. The view taken by Mr. Justice Ranade in Panchappa v. Sanganbasawa appears to me to represent the correct conclusion on this point. Apart from the Hindu Widow Remarriage Act XV of 1856, it seems to me that a Hindu widow on her remarriage loses all power of giving her son by her first husband in adoption, because her connection with the family of her husband, which is necessary for the act of giving in adoption, ceases on remarriage. The texts of Yajnavalkya and Manu, which authorize the father or the mother to give a son in adoption, do not, in my opinion, affect this concl...
Manilal Jugaldas Vs. Banubai Framji Commissariat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom266; (1921)23BOMLR374
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The question on this application is whether the respondents, who lost on the appeal to this Court, are entitled to a certificate that this is a fit case to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council. The subject-matter of the suit was a olaim to an easement of light and air through two small windows in the respondent's cook-room. Admittedly, if an attempt were made to value the easement, it would not amount to Rs. 10,000. But it was argued on the previous hearing before us that, although the value of the easement may perhaps be less than Rs. 10,000, the suit involves a claim or question to or respecting property of the value of over Rs. 10,000. Therefore, we directed further affidavits to be filed with regard to the valuation of the premises in which the windows were situated. At that time the case of De Silva v. De Silva (1904) 6 Bom. L.R. 403 was not cited to us. In that case there was an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council on the ground t...
Gopalji Kallianji Vs. Chhaganlal Vithalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom419; (1921)23BOMLR614
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants to recover damages for breach of contract. On the 29th September 1919, an order of reference was made by consent, whereby the matters in dispute were referred to the arbitration of the arbitrators chosen by the parties. The order prescribed a period of one month within which the award was to be made. This period was extended from time to time by a number of orders until the 10th of April 1920. The 10th of April was a Saturday and the last day of the term. On that day evidence was taken and it was arranged that the arbitrators should intimate to the parties the market rate on which damages were to be assessed and on those rates the parties would submit the figures for the award. On the 12th of April the arbitrators announced the rates, and the final award was in accordance with those rates prepared on the 13th. As the period for delivering the award had expired on the 10th of April, both parties signed a c...
Nakimo Dewani Vs. Musammat Pemba Dichen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR698
Buckmaster, J.1. The sole question in this appeal is whether a guardian appointed by the Court of Wards on behalf of infants has power to compromise proceedings in the Civil Court, to which those infants are defendants. It is alleged on behalf of the appellants that such a compromise cannot take place unless the agreement for compromise has been examined by the Civil Court and the Civil Court has assented to its terms. Section 375 of the Civil Procedure Code of 1882 provides that if a suit is wholly or in part compromised by any lawful agreement, such agreement shall be recorded 'and the Court shall pass a decree in accordance therewith so far as it relates to the suit, and such decree shall be final. 'That section received qualification by Section 462, which enacted that' no next friend or guardian for the suit shall, without the leave of the Court, enter into any agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor'; but by the Code as it was originally passed it was expressly enacted that S...
Jerup Teja and Co. Vs. Peerbhoy Adamji Peerbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom421; (1921)23BOMLR1241
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. One Peerbhoy Adamji Peerbhoy is entitled to a one-sixth share in certain property. The plaintiffs in this suit are the fourth mortgagees of 'that one-sixth share. They filed this suit against the mortgagor, and the first, second, third and fifth mortgagees praying (I) that the first defendant might be ordered to pay them the mortgage money with interest; (2) that it might be declared that the third defendant, the second mortgagee, was bound to accept from the plaintiffs the amount of interest in arrears; (3) that the third defendant might be restrained from proceeding further with the sale of the said share, and for further and other relief.2. The necessity of the suit arose from the fact that the third defendant advertised the mortgaged property for sale subject to the interest of the first mortgagee. The plaintiffs moved for an interim injunction restraining the third defendant from proceeding with the sale, but the lower Court refused to grant the injunct...
Maharaj Bahadur Singh Vs. Balchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1920
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR623
Buckmaster, J.1. Their Lordships do not desire to hear counsel for the respondents in this case, for having given full regard to the facts stated and advanced on behalf of the appellants, they find themselves unable to advise His Majesty, that the appeal should be allowed.2. The case is interesting : it arises out of a claim by a religious body known as the Sitambari Jains to use for their worship a hill known as the Parasnath Hill, which appears to have been consecrated by use extending over many years for their rites and ceremonies. No question, however, arises in this appeal as to any title acquired by this long user, for this dispute had already arisen and was settled by an agreement made on May 16, 1872; it is only on the terms of this agreement that the present appeal depends. The agreement was in two parts-signed, in the one case by Raja Sri Parasnath Singh, and in the other by the honorary manager of the Sitambari Jain Society. The general effect of these documents is that the ...
Sayyapureddi Chinnayya Dhora Vs. the King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR705
Viscount Cave, J.1. The appellants were convicted under Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and were sentenced by the Sessions Judge of Vizaga-patam to rigorous imprisonment for three years. On appeal to the High Court of Judicature at Madras, that Court affirmed the conviction and, on the application of the Public Prosecutor for revision of the sentences, enchanced the sentences to transportation for fourteen years. Leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council having been obtained, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the High Court had no jurisdiction to impose a sentence of transportation for fourteen years.2. Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code authorises a sentence of 'transportation for life or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ton years'; and Section 59, which applies to every case where an offender is punishable with imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, authorises the C...
Kali Nath Roy Vs. the King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR709
Viscount Cave, J.1. The appellant was convicted on the 28th May, 1919, by a Court of Commissioners sitting at Lahore under Ordinance I of 1919, and having the powers of a summary court-martial, of an offence under Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, i.e., of haying by written words excited or attemped to excite disaffection towards His Majesty or the Government established by law in British India, and was sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment-afterwards reduced to three months' simple imprisonment-and to a fine of Rs. 1,000. Special leave to appeal was granted by His Majesty in Council on the 18th August, 1919.2. The facts are shortly as follows:-In March and April, 1919. there was unrest in the Punjab. Serious disturbances occurred at Delhi on the 30th March, when some persons were killed; and these disturbances were followed by disorder and violence at Amritsar and Lahore and elsewhere in the Punjab. The disturbances at Lahore occurred on the 6th, 10th, 11th and 12th Apri...
Venkatesh Raval Shetti Vs. Bhiku Venkatesh Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom207; (1921)23BOMLR478
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal was dismissed on a preliminary issue as the learned Judge considered that the case was governed by Article 47 and that the suit was out of time.2. The plaintiff, in 1913, filed a suit in the Mamlatdar's Court against the defendant for an injunction restraining the defendant from disturbing his possession in the suit land. The plaintiff obtained an injunction in 1913 The defendant applied to the District Deputy Collector in revision and he dismissed the plaintiff's suit. If that decision could stand, it might be said that it was an order binding upon the plaintiff with regard to the possession of the suit land, so as to come within the first class of the orders which a Mamlatdar can pass on the question, as laid down in the judgment of Mr. Justice Chandavarkar in Tukarain v. Hari I.L.R (1904) Bom. 609: 6 Bom. L.R. 612, f. b. But it is perfectly clear that the District Deputy Collector had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Mamlatda...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »