Mumbai Court August 1920 Judgments
Sakharam Daji Ganpule Vs. Ganu Raghu Gurao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom297; (1921)23BOMLR125; 60Ind.Cas.924
Shah, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is one of the pujaris of the well-known temple of Shri Bhargavram near Chiplun. He filed the present suit to recover Rs. 91-8-0 as damages from defendants Nos. 1 to 10, the Guravs, connected with this temple. He also prayed for an injunction restraining them from collecting the offerings made to the deity during the period of his turn to serve as a pujari. His allegation was that as one of the hereditary pujaris of this temple he had the right to officiate in the months of Magh and Phalgun of the Shake year 1838 and that during that time the defendants Nos. 1 to 10 forcibly prevented him from entering the temple and from receiving the offerings laid before the deity. The plaintiff's claim was that he was entitled to receive these offerings in accordance with the long-established usage of the institution, according to which the offerings were to be appropriated by the pujaris. The Guravs defended the suit on the ground that they were entitled to the...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. G.S. Fernandez
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1920
Reported in: (1920)22BOMLR1040
Shah, J.1. In this application it has been urged on behalf of the applicant that after the witnesses for the prosecution were examined, the accused was not asked to explain the evidence against him as required by Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offence charged was punishable under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, and the procedure applicable to the case was that provided for the trial of summons-eases The trial was held by the Second Presidency Magistrate. On behalf of the Crown it is urged that the words of Section 342 are controlled by the words 'if the Magistrate thinks fit' used in Section 245 and 'if any Section 370, Clause (f) of the Code and that the Magistrate was not bound to question the accused as required by Section 342 in the trial of a summons-case before convicting the accused.2. We called for a report from the learned Magistrate as to whether the accused was in fact questioned at the close of the prosecution case under Section 342. We have received a r...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Govind Pandurang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom366; (1920)22BOMLR1239
Shah, J.1. This is an application by the complainant for the revision of the order dismissing the complaint and discharging the accused. The trial Magistrate was of opinion that the execution proceedings would not be judicial proceedings, and that, therefore, the alleged fabrication of false evidence could not fall under the first part of Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also of opinion that the allegations in the complaint did not bring the case under the second part of that section. It was urged on behalf of the accused that the sanction of the Court at Rajapur, which had passed the decree in favour of the complainant, was necessary under Section 195 (b), Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate apparently thought that his view that the execution proceedings were not judicial proceedings was decisive of the complaint, and he expressed no opinion on the question of sanction. He overruled the contention of the complainant that the complaint would be covered by the se...
Tag this Judgment!G.S. Fernandez Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom374; 59Ind.Cas.129
Shah, J.1. In this application it has been urged on behalf of the applicant that, after the witnesses for the prosecution were examined, the accused was not asked to explain the evidence against him as required by Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The offense charged was punishable under Section 352, Indian Penal Code, and the procedure applicable to the case was that provided for the trial of summons cases. The trial was held by the Second Presidency Magistrate. On behalf of the Crown it is urged that the words of Section 342 are controlled by the words 'if the Magistrate thinks fit' used in Section 245 and 'if any' in Section 370, Clause (f) of the Code, and that the Magistrate was not bound to question the accused as required by Section 342 in the trial of a summons case before convicting the accused.2. We called for a report from the learned Magistrate as to whether the accused was in fact questioned at the close of the prosecution case under Section 342. We have recei...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ram Gopal Rupji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom162; (1920)22BOMLR900; 58Ind.Cas.149
Shah, J.1. The petitioner in this case was charged with having committed an offence punishable under Section 7, Sub-section 1, of the Bombay Rent (War Restrictions No. 2) Act 1918, by charging Rs. 13-7-2 on account of rent for October 1919, whereas according to the standard rent fixed under the Act in June 1919 he was entitled to charge Rs. 13-3-2 as rent. The bill showed that he charged Rs. 13-3-2 for the rent and 4 annas extra for the electric light which was supplied on the passages in the building of which the premises in question formed a part. The learned Magistrate, who tried the case, came to the conclusion that in fixing the standard rent the Controller must have taken into account the charges for the electric light thus supplied and that by charging 4 annas more for the light he indirectly received on account of rent 4 annas more than the standard rent which he was allowed to recover and by doing so he committed an offence punishable under Section 7 (1) of that Act.2. In comi...
Tag this Judgment!Gitabai Bhau Rajmane Vs. Krishna Malhari Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom295; (1921)23BOMLR119
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to eject the defendant, to recover possession of the plaint land and for arrears of rent. The defendant claimed that the plaint land belonged to his family from ancient time by Miras rights. The land originally belonged to one Balaji who mortgaged it to Shiralkar. The plaintiff purchased the equity of redemption of Balaji on the 18th of October 1910 and acquired the interest of the mortgagee Shiralkar by an award decree in original Suit No. 686 of 1911. He thereby became full owner of the plaint laud. The defendant claimed that he had become entitled to Miras rights in the land by adverse possession. Undoubtedly a tenant can set up against f his landlord a claim to hold under more favourable terms of tenancy than those which the landlord is prepared to concede, and he can acquire such rights by prescription. The only question in this case is, whether we are satisfied that under the law the defendant has acquired the Miras rights by adverse...
Tag this Judgment!The Ahmedabad Municipality Vs. Manilal Chhaganlal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR193
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Heaton J.2. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad praying for an injunction restraining the defendant, the Ahmedabad Municipality, from cutting off' or removing the projection in dispute of his house. A decree was passed in the plaintiff's favour. On appeal to the District Judge the suit was dismissed with costs throughout. In second appeal the decree of the trial Court was restored.3. The original owner of the suit house Tarbhovan Saochand had applied to the Municipality in 1897 for permission to make a projection (dakhli) and to put a tin sheet roof (Khapeda) over it. Permission was given on the 4th October 1897 to make a dakhli of two feet in breadth and to put a khapeda of one foot in breadth over it. It is suggested that the application was made and the permission was given under Section 33 of the Bombay District Municipal Act VI of 1873. Ta...
Tag this Judgment!Sonubai Baburao Gaikawad Vs. Shivajirao Krishnarao Gaikawad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom20; (1921)23BOMLR110; 60Ind.Cas.919
Shah, J.1. These are two applications by Sonubai, widow of Baburao, to set aside the orders made by this Court on the 28th February 1916 dismissing the appeal and rejecting the application under Extraordinary Jurisdiction filed on her behalf by her next friend for default under Order XLI, Rule 17. The circumstances under Which the applications are made are these : Sonubai's husband Baburao filed Suit No. 410 of 1911 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona for a partition of the joint family property and to recover his half share against Krishnarao. One Limbaji had three sons, Balwantrao, Gopalrao and Gangaram. Balwantrao died leaving a son, Baburao. Gopalrao died leaving a son Krishnarao. Thus Baburao and Krishnarao were cousins. Gangaram was not joined as a party to the suit, as it was stated that he had already separated. The joint property was stated to be very valuable. Baburao valued his half share at Rs. 18,72,005. In 1912, Gangaram filed Suit No. 359 of 1912 i...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvanath Parsharam Bhave Vs. Narsu Tulsidas Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom33; (1921)23BOMLR107; 60Ind.Cas.916
Shah, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the present Darkhast filed by the decree-holder on the 1st October 1917 is in time. The decree under execution was passed on the 19th September 1912. The first Darkhast was presented on the 4th of March 1913. It appears that during the pendency of a certain suit, the execution was stayed from 28th July 1913 to 27th July 1914. It also appears that the Darkhast of 1913 was adjourned from time to time from 12th October 1914 to 21st September 1915 during the pendency of certain miscellaneous proceedings relating to the investigation of claims to the attached property put forward by third parties. Both the lower Courts have held that the present Darkhast is in time, because the decree-holder is entitled under Section 15 of the Indian Limitation Act to exclude the time from 28th July 1913 to 27th July 1914 and from 12th October 1914 to 21st September 1015. It is clear from the dates, and it is not disputed, that if these periods were excluded...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimabai Padappa Desai Vs. Swamirao Shriniwas Parwati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom175; (1921)23BOMLR100
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover from the defendant as inferior holder the assessment and local fund case for 1912-13 of certain lands in five villages. The trial Court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover as Inamdar, but allowed the claim for Judi and local fund case for the lands in suit to the extent of Rs. 140-10-9 under Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act. The lower appellate Court dismissed the suit altogether. The learned Judge held that the plaintiff was barred from recovering the assessment for the suit lands by the principle of res judicata, because certain suits had been filed by the defendant to recover possession of the land and mesne profits from the tenants and the plaintiff's husband was a party to those suits. But I do not think that the question, which is now in issue whether plaintiff is entitled to levy assessment against the defendant, was in issue in these suits though Padappa was a party. The learned appellate Judge does ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »