Mumbai Court February 1922 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. Venkatrao Rajerao Mudvedkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR386
Pratt, J.1. The accused in this case has been fined for contempt of Court in a summary proceeding held by the Sessions Judge of Dharwar under Section 480 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. On an appeal to this Court there was a difference of opinion between Macleod C.J. and Shah J. and the appeal has been referred to me for decision.3. The contempt was the offence defined in Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was on trial for offences of riot, mischief by fire and attempt to murder, and when opening his defence put in a written statement complaining that ho was being tried by a prejudiced Judge.4. Such words are a gross insult to any Court of Justice, but Shah J. came to a conclusion which is expressed in the following passage from his judgment:-His conduct is consistent with the view that his intention was bo press a defence which was adopted and adhered to without sufficient thought and which was couched in improper language and not to offer an insult to the Judge.5. Wi...
Mohan Lal Amrit Lal and anr. Vs. Bai Mahajaveri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.859
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Broach in execution proceedings with regard to a decree in Regular Civil Suit No. 34 of 1915. The original decree-holders were Mohanlal and Maneklal and the two sons of their deceased brother Dahyabhai. After the decree Maneklal died, and then his widow put in an application in which she prayed that she should be brought on the record as the legal representative of her deceased husband. She was rsked to produce a Succession Certificate, which she did. Accordingly, on the 30th October 1919 her prayer was granted, but no notice of her application was given to the other decree-holders. On the 4th November they asked that the ex parte order made in favour of Maneklal's widow should be vacated. On that the following order was made by the Subordinate Judge: 'Rejected in view of the previous order on the Darkhast.' That was a wrong way of dealing with that application. As tire order in favour of the widow was made ex parte, it wa...
Venkatrao Rajerao Mudvedkar Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1922
Reported in: 66Ind.Cas.821
1. The accused in this case has been fined for contempt of Court in a summary proceeding held by the Sessions Judge of Dharwar under Section 490 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. On an appeal to this Court there was a difference of opinion between Macleod, C. J., and Shah, J., and the appeal has been referred to me for decision.3. The contempt was the offense defined in Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was on trial for offenses of riot, mischief by fire and attempt to murder and when opening his defense put in a written statement complaining that he was being tried by a prejudiced Judge.4. Such words are a gross, insult to any Court of Justice, but Shah, J., same to a conclusion which is expressed in the following passage from his judgment.His conduct is consistent with the view that his intention was to press a defense which was adopted and adhered to without sufficient thought and which was couched in improper language and not to offer an insult to the Judge.5. With ...
Rajaram Sitaram Potphode Vs. Jagannath Govindrao Yeshwantrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR323; 67Ind.Cas.322
Coyajee, J.1. The plaintiff in this case and the twelfth defendant are Khots of Mouje Kosumb in the Ratnagiri District. The defendants Nos. 1 to 11 are members of a family named Potphode. The plaintiff brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal to recover possession of lands comprised in Survey No. 269 falni No. 4, alleging that he was the owner thereof; that they formed part of his Khoti Khasgi estate; and that the Potphode defendants had unlawfully dispossessed him of the same.2. The third defendant was the only party who contested this claim in the trial Court, He denied the plaintiff's title and possession as alleged, and asserted that the said lands belonged to, and were continuously enjoyed by, members of the Potphode family. He further contended that the suit lands were entered in the village Botkhat in the name of some members of his family, that the plaintiff did not get such entry reversed or modified by the decree of a competent Court within the period prescribed b...
Someshvar Jethabhai Dave Vs. Someshvar Govindram Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom16; (1922)24BOMLR493; 67Ind.Cas.658
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. There is only one question which arises in these two second appeals with regard to the direction of the Court below that defendant No. 4 should receive back the total sale price of Rs. 799 which he paid for the land which Sarasvatibai sold to him without any legal necessity, as has now been proved. It has been found as a fact that the whole of this amount of Rs. 799 came to the hands of the executors of Sarasvatibai after her death.2. The appellants contend that as the sale must be set aside as having been made by the widow without legal necessity, the defendant is bound to hand back the property, while they can retain the purchase price as belonging to the widow's estate. There does not seem to be any direct authority on this question, although, we think, the principles of equity provide the only answer the Court should give. If it has been proved that a sale by a widow having a limited interest, has benefited the estate by the payment of debts which were bindin...
D. Rubine Vs. Balwantrai Ramnarayan Trividi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom12; 105Ind.Cas.795
1. The plaintiff got a decree from the Bombay High Court against the defendant, who is described in the decree as a merchant and commission agent doing business at Ahmedabad and Bombay. The defendant did not object to this description. He did not plead that he was m agriculturist, in which case this Court would have had no jurisdiction, and allowed the decree to be passed against him. When the plaintiff sought to arrest him in execution of the decree, then for the first time he claimed exemption as an agriculturist from personal arrest. He was examined, with his two witnesses, and on their evidence the Judge came to the conclusion that the defendant was an agriculturist. The Judge said 'The defendant and his two witnesses Manilal and Venkatram state that the defendant's only business was agriculture. He doss not follow any other business. I, therefore, hold that the defendant is an agriculturist.' That is not sufficient. The defendant must prove that he earns his livelihood wholly or p...
Tribhovandas Varjivandas Vs. Balmukundas Kishoredas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom15; (1922)24BOMLR434; 67Ind.Cas.864
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover by partition the eastern moiety of the plaint village site and agricultural land of the village of Lahna from the defendants on payment to them of the sum of Rs. 9500, and to have a deed of conveyance relating to the said eastern moiety from the defendants. There is no dispute with regard to certain facts. On the 29th March 1916, Mahant Devpuri Sukhdevpuri, who was the owner of the village, sold 1110 bighas of the agricultural land on the western side of the village with a moiety of the village site to the defendants for Rs. 20,000 by a sale-deed, Exh. 44. On the same date Devpuri conveyed to the defendants the remaining portion of the village on the eastern side with the remaining moiety of the village site for Rs. 10,000 by a deed, Exh. 45. But by this sale-deed it was agreed that the vendor Devpuri was at liberty to purchase that portion back within three years on payment of Rs. 10,000.2. On the 7th June 1918, the plaintiff purcha...
Rai Baijnath Goenka Vs. Maharaja Sir Ravaneshwar Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR974
John Edge, J.1. These are three consolidated appeals. It will be convenient to dispose at once of the appeal in which Musammat Bibi Nabi Zohra is the appellant. That appeal is not supported, and will be dismissed with costs.2. In the other two appeals which will now be considered, Rai Baijnath Goenka was the appellant; he is now dead, and is represented by his minor son through his mother and guardian his next friend. These two consolidated appeals are from two decrees, dated April 24, 1917, of the High Court at Patna, which reversed the decrees, dated February 22 1916, of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, by which the Subordinate Judge dismissed applications by the respondents here or those whom they represent for the execution of a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr of June 30, 1904, which on the advice of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had by an order of His Majesty in Council of February 3, 1915, been restored, except as to villages Matasi and Mirzagunj.3. In order...
Shama Durgaji Bhoi Vs. Gangadhar Narayan Muzumdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR445; 67Ind.Cas.419
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they alone had a right to ply a ferry between the village of Bhopkhel and Kirkee Bazar, and for an injunction restraining the defendant from plying a ferry between Bhopkhel and Kirkee Bazar. The river Mula runs between these two villages, and until a dam was built in 1872 people were able to cross the river except in the rainy season. That has no longer been possible since the building of the dam. The plaintiffs who are Inamdars of the village of Bhopkhel then began to run a ferry to take people across, and they were receiving the income from the ferry until 1915 when the first defendant began to run a rival ferry under the permission grunted by the Superintendent of the Ammunition Factory, ratified by the Collector.2. When the plaintiffs objected to the first defendant's plying his ferry, an order was passed by the Collector as follows:-In this Office No. L.F. 1/853-3 of 25th March 1916 Shama Durgaji Bhoi of Kirkee was ...
Chimabai Malgauda Patil Vs. Mallapa Payappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR489; 67Ind.Cas.654
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the widow of one Malgauda who died of plague on the 29th November 1915, and sues to recover possession of her husband's property against the first defendant who claims to be the adopted eon of Malgauda. Various objections have been raised to the adoption, first, that Malgauda having lost his brother Appu a few days previous to the data of the adoption was in mourning, and was, therefore, incapable of performing any religious ceremony; secondly, that the adopted son was the son of Malgauda's sister, and therefore could not be adopted; thirdly, that the adoption did not take place at all, although it had to be admitted that an adoption deed was executed and registered.2. On the 14th December 1915, the plaintiff made a petition to the Mamlatdar to have her name inserted in C and D Registers since her husband had died a fortnight back. In that petition she said that there were factions in the village, and therefore, the village officers ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »