Mumbai Court September 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.
In Re: S.P. Nataraja Pillai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom90
Wallace, J.1. Petitioner, an agent of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, has been appointed in respect of offences under Section 53, Madras Act III of 1888, a member of the Madras City Police Force constituted under that Act. By virtue of that appointment he is empowered to arrest offenders under that section.2. It appears to me clear that he is, so far as his inclusion in the Madras City Police force operates, an officer of Government, whose duty is to bring offenders to justice. He is therefore a public servant within the definition of Section 21 (8) of the Indian Penal Code.3. The case reported in Upendra Kumar Ghose v. The King-Emperor (1) is in favour of this view.4. This petition fails and is dismissed....
Shridhar Laxman Dhekne and ors. Vs. Janardhanbapuji Kurawde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom37; 72Ind.Cas.993
Marten, J.1. We are hearing this case in second appeal, and two points have been argued before us. The first is as to the effect of the conveyance by Krishnaji to the plaintiff of 23rd September 1915. (Exhibit 71). Counsel for the defendants Nos. 2 to 4, who are the appellants, contends that on the true construction of the document, merely one-third of Ramachandra's one-quarter share passed, and not the whole of that one-quarter share. We have carefully considered this document, and we are of opinion that the decision in the Court below as to the effect of this document is correct, namely, that the entirety of that one-quarter passed to the plaintiff.2. Originally, undoubtedly, Ramachandra had conveyed this quarter to Kashinath in 1883 by Exhibit 66. Kashinath had conveyed it by Exhibit 83 to Krishnaji in 1896. But by a document of 1904 (Exhibit 72) one Govind as survivor of himself and Gopal had purported to convey a two-thirds share in this quarter to the plaintiff on the hypothesis ...
Harischandra Narayan Vinekar Vs. Kumma Vithoba Komarpant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1318
Shah, Acting C.J.1. This application arises out of a small cause suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Karwar. It appears that the present defendant No. 2 Harischandra had filed Suit No. 562 of 1920 against Pandurang in which he obtained a decree against him. At that time it was pleaded by way of defence that Kumma bin Vithoba, the present defendant No. 1, had really paid rent to Harischandra Which was then claimed as being payable by Pandurang; but that defence was not believed and a decree was passed in favour of Harischandra. Thereafter the present plaintiff Pandurang and his daughter, who are Mulgenidars of the Devasthan, filed Suit No. 267 of 1921 in the same Court to recover the rent which would be payable by Kumma, defendant No. 1, to them. Defendant No. 1 is admittedly their tenant. The learned Judge finds that the rent was due by him to the plaintiffs and has passed a decree for Rs. 27 against defendant No. 1. But as it appeared from the evidence which was ...
Tribhuvan Uttamram Vs. Bai Kushal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom226; (1923)25BOMLR79; 73Ind.Cas.666
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The facts which have given rise to this Second Appeal are these. One Girjashankar made a will in respect of his properties on September 3, 1907, and he appointed the present plaintiffs as executors under that will. He died in October 1907. Thereafter in 1908 a suit was filed by his widow against the present plaintiffs and the present defendant No. 1, who is the sister of Girjashankar. In that suit there was a compromise. In accordance with that compromise, a decree was passed in favour of the then plaintiff, i. e., the widow of Girjashankar, so far as it related to the suit. The rest of the agreement being outside the scope of the suit was not incorporated in the decree. The present defendant No. 1 sold the properties in suit to defendant No. 2 in April 1917.2. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed the present suit in December 1917 with a view to enforce the agreement relating to their right of pre-emption in respect of the two houses in suit.3. The defendan...
The Superintendent of Stamps Vs. Chimanlal Lalbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom237; (1923)25BOMLR112; 73Ind.Cas.718
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 57 of the Stamp Act of 1899. The question referred to us is:- With what stamp duty is each of the instruments referred to in paragraph 1 of the reference chargeable? The instruments are Exhibits A and B. They are in form transfers of shares signed by one of the three brothers in favour of each of the other two brothers respectively. Exhibit A is in respect of 960 shares and Exhibit B is in respect of 830 shares. We have heard arguments on this question on behalf of the Crown and on behalf of the parties interested. We are of opinion that these two instruments Exhibits A and B are chargeable under article 45 of Schedule I to the Stamp Act, as instruments of partition.2. It appears that a partition among these three brothers was effected in November 1918. There was no deed of partition and the shares in question continued in the name of the eldest brother Chimanbhai. They were in his name before the family was divided i...
Harischandra Narayan Vinekar Vs. Kumma BIn Vithoba Komar Pant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1922
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.296
1. This application arises out of a small cause suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Karwar. It appears that the present defendant No. 2, Harischandra, had filed Suit No. 562 of 1920 against Pandurang in which he obtained a decree against him. At that time it was pleaded by way of defence that Kumma bin Vithoha, the present defendant No. 1 had really paid rent to Harischandra which was then claimed as being payable by Pandurang; but that defence was not believed and a decree was passed in favour cf Harischandra. Thereafter the present plaintiff Pandurang and Iris daughter, who are Mulgenidars of the Davasthan, filed Suit No. 267 of 1921 in the same Court to recover the rent which would be payable by Kumma, defendant No. 1, to them. Defendant No. 1 is admittedly their tenant. The learned Judge finds that the rent was due by him to the plaintiffs and has passed a decree for Rs. 27 against defendant No. 1. But as it appeared from the evidence which was recorded in thi...
Rasul Musa Mafat Vs. Asman Musa Dadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom60; (1922)24BOMLR1311; 76Ind.Cas.442
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. This is an application under our extraordinary jurisdiction to revise the order made by the Collector on June 2, 1921. It is necessary to state the facts briefly which have led to the present application. A suit was filed in the Court of the Mamlatdar at Godhra under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act II of 1906. In that suit the Mamlatdar made an order on September 4, 1920, refusing to exercise the power vested in him under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. The Mamlatdar held that the matter could be more suitably dealt with by a Civil Court. It was open to him to make that order under the proviso to Section 5. The plaintiff preferred an application to the Collector for the revision of that order, and the Collector made an order on October 6 (September in the original order seems to be a mistake for October), 1920 in these terms :-'I think the Mamlatdar should proceed with the case from the point at which he left off to give his decision, and return the case for necess...
Chaturbhai Lallubhai Patel Vs. Motibhai Bapuji Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom146; (1922)24BOMLR1315
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed the present suit as the assignees of the original owners of the land in suit to recover possession of the property, and for accounts on the footing that the transaction of April 22, 1892, was a mortgage. The original owners passed a document in 1892 in favour of the father of the present defendant No. 1 and the husband of the present defendant No. 2 whereby they purported to convey to these persons the right to hold the land for 500 years in consideration of their having received at the time a sum of Rs. 180 (Babashahi coins). The defendants contended that the plaintiff's had no right to the land, and that in any case the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover possession before the expiry of the period mentioned in the document. Various issues were raised in the trial Court, one of which was, whether the plaintiffs' claim was time-barred. The trial Court held that the alienation evidenced by this document of 1892 was void in consequen...
Naru Hari Gujar Vs. Tai Devji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom191; (1923)25BOMLR68; 76Ind.Cas.265
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are few and simple. One Gopal was the owner of the property in suit. He died leaving a widow named Venai and a daughter named Vithai. He also left a nephew. In March 1911 the widow conveyed the whole of her estate by way of gift to her daughter by a. registered deed. The daughter conveyed the whole estate absolutely to the widow on December 14, 1912. The daughter Vithai died in 1915 leaving a daughter Tai, who is the present defendant. Venai, the widow, gifted away the lands now in suit to her grand-daughter, the defendant, on April 6, 1916. The plaintiff, who is the nephew of Gopal, claims these lands as a reversioner. Venai died in November 1918, and the plaintiff filed this suit in April 1919 to recover the lands as a reversioner. The defence of the defendant was that the widow Venai completely and effectively surrendered her whole estate to the next reversioner, her daughter, in March 1911, that when ...
Rampratab Brijmohandas Vs. Gavrishankar Kashiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR7
Mulla, J.1. This is a suit to recover Rs. 13,651 alleged to be due from the defendant to the plaintiffs at foot of an agency account.2. The plaintiffs firm carried on business in Bombay as Muccadums in cotton. There were two partners in the plaintiffs' firm, viz., the firm of Hiralal Ramgopal and Brijmohandas Rampratab. The defendant's father, Kashiram Bhagwandas, carried on business at Amballa in the Punjab in the name of Beharilal Bisambardas. Kashiram consigned cotton to the plaintiffs' firm for sale in Bombay, and the plaintiffs' firm made advances to him against the consignments. The present suit is to recover the amount due to the plaintiffs' firm in respect of those transactions. The amount claimed, viz., Rs. 13,651, includes an item of Rs. 11,000 to be presently referred to.3. On May 1, 1917, Brijmohandas filed a petition in insolvency and a vesting order was made on May 3, 1917.4. Kashiram died in May 1918, leaving a son Gavrishankar who is still a minor and a widow Bai Peli. ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »