Mumbai Court July 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.
Emperor Vs. Gangaram Hari Pandit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1274
Shah, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts of the case proceeded to deal with the point of law as follows:-]2. At the start, I desire to deal with the question of law as to the admissibility of certain evidence which has been raised cm behalf of the defence. It has been urged that the evidence now adduced by the prosecution to show that the prosecution theory as then put forward in the Bagdi murder case was false and also that the theory put forward by the prosecution then in the case relating to Gaugu's murder was false is inadmissible. It is urged that it really amounts to evidence of similar acts showing either habit on the part of some of the accused or establishing their bad character. It is also urged that the admission of this evidence really puts the accused on the defence not only as to the murder of Dadu but as to two other murders as to which no charges are framed, but which are made indirectly the subject-ill matter of the inquiry. On the other hand it is urged th...
Tilakdhari Lal Vs. Khedan Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1319
Buckmaster, J.1. The main question raised upon this appeal is a pure question of law, and depends upon the true construction to be placed on certain Indian statutes In the earlier stages of the dispute this question was associated with the history of a series of transactions to which detailed reference is now unnecessary, since the chief point that arises for determination is whether the effect of the Registration Act, 1877, and the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, is to provide that the registration of a deed shall by the mere fact of registration become, in the words of Lord Camden (Morecock v. Diekins (1768) A.R. 678, 'presumptive notice to all mankind'. Opinion in India has differed Upon the point. Certain decisions in the High Court of Bombay appear to be based upon the view that it is, while in Calcutta the decisions have been so uniformly in the opposite direction that in the present case counsel for the appellants, who contend in favour of the doctrine that registration is notic...
Srimati Giribala Dasi Vs. Kalidas Bhanja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1332
Atkinson, J.1. The plaintiffs in the action out of which this appeal has arisen were maliks of an eight-annas share of taluk No. 381, within the Collectorate touzi of District 24 Pergunnahs. One Jogendranath Bose and Nagendrabala Dasi resident in Calcutta were maliks of a four-annas share of this same taluk. Of this latter share the plaintiffs had ever since the death of their father been in possession as ijaras of the said owners thereof, and one Hari Gharan Bose resident within the aforesaid district was the malik of the remaining four-annas share. In order to overcome inconvenience and to facilitate the plaintiffs in collecting the rents payable by the tenants of the twelve annas share of the entire taluk, the plaintiffs desired to purchase the four-anuas share of Hari Charan Bose, and thus become entitled to collect the rents of the tenants of the entire taluk treated as one estate. They accordingly proposed to the said Hari Charan that he should sell to Hem Chandra Bhanja, acting ...
Erachshaw Dosabhai Toddiwala Vs. Bai Dinbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom399; (1920)22BOMLR1293
Fawcett, J.1. In this Civil Extraordinary Application we are asked to interfere with a decree passed by the Chief Judge of the Presidency Small Cause Court awarding the opponent certain sums on the ground that that Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the claims on which that relief was given. One of the claims relates to a question of costs regarding which we need only say them is no reason to differ from the view taken by the Full Court that there was jurisdiction.2. Regarding the other claim the main facts are as follows. The applicant and opponent are husband and wife. It appears that within six months of their marriage they quarrelled and separated, and in November 1916 the wife obtained a decree for restitution of conjugal rights from the Parsi Matrimonial Court. For a short time thereafter they lived together, although it is alleged this was only by way of show, and then they separated again, which separation continues till now. A few months after the decree for restitution, t...
Chokhu Raoji Mahar Vs. Tatya Nama Mahar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1297
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for partition and possession of their halt' share in the plaint property. The learned Assistant Judge reversed the decree of the lower Court in favour of the plaintiffs and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs. The learned Judge said 'the only issue in appeal was whether the property was joint property of Nama, Vithoba and Raoji, the ancestor of the plaintiffs'. He came to the conclusion that it was not. That, as far as we are concerned, is a finding of fact. But an entirely new point of law has been raised in second appeal, namely, that assuming that the property had been joint and then lost, on account of its being sold for arrears of revenue but afterwards recovered by one of the members of the family, other than Raoji, out of his own means, then the text of the Mitakshara applies, which says that when family property has been lost and then re-acquired by one of the members of the family, that member is entitled to keep a quarter ...
Mabel Flora Murphy Vs. James Lloyd Murphy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom211; (1920)22BOMLR1077; 76Ind.Cas.633
Marten, J.1. This is a wife's petition for a divorce on the ground of her husband's adultery and cruelty.2. The respondent is an officer in the Indian Army and he married the petitioner in 1911 at Mhow. The parties resided subsequently at several places and in particular in Burma. Then the husband went out to Mesopotamia, and in the following year, in September or October-1918, he came back on leave from Mesopotamia and he and his wife resided for the greater portion of a month at the Taj Mahal in Bombay, the only interval being that of one week when they went to stay at Moimt Abu.3. The first point that arises is the question of jurisdiction as to whether the case is brought in a Court within the jurisdiction of which the parties last resided together. Now, that point was considered by Mr. Justice Fletcher in Bright v. Bright I.L.R. (1909) Cal. 964, where he held that residence at the Grand Hotel at Calcutta for about a fortnight satisfied the conditions of the Act. The learned Judge ...
Gabu Naroba Rajput Vs. Zipru Ramsing Rajput
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom384; (1920)22BOMLR1289
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff' sued for an account and for recovery of his one-third share of the proceeds of certain securities, alleging that the plaintiff, Ramsing, father of the defendant, and Ravjee were three brothers living jointly; that they divided in June 1898 the immoveable estate, but that they kept joint certain cash securities as they were all 1 in the name of Ramsing who was the elder brother and manager of the joint, estate; that at the time of partition it was orally agreed' that Ramsing should realize the securities and divide the proceeds among the three brothers; that Ramsing did not divide the proceeds nor give any account; that Ramsing died 011 6th January 1914; that after Ramsing's death the plaintiff asked the defendant for an account but he refused to give it.2. The suit has been dismissed in both Courts. The learned Judges held that the claim was barred by limitation, it being governed by Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act. Exhibit 62 is a doc...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›