Mumbai Court November 1923 Judgments
Motibai Hormusji Kanga Vs. Jamsetji Hormusji Kanga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR579
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of an application by the petitioner, a Parsee lady named Mrs. Motibai Kanga, in the Court of the District Judge of Bangalore for the probate of a will which she alleges had been executed by her husband shortly before his death, on August 17, 1920. The probate was granted by the District Judge, Mr. de Rozario, on December 19, 1921. His older was, however, reversed by the Resident of Mysore, Mr. Barton, who appears to have exercised, in his official capacity, the appellate jurisdiction over the Civil Court in Bangalore; hence the appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. The testator, Mr. Hormusjee Rustomjee Kanga, resided in Bangalore, and he is described as having been a turf accountant. He became ill on August 2, 1920, and his medical attendant, a doctor named Mylvaganam, diagnosed his complaint as malaria; but as he became gradually worse, his wife and friends became anxious and called in two other doctors in consultation with Dr. Mylvaganam. They wer...
Tag this Judgment!Nagendrabala Dasi Vs. Dinanath Mahish
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR575
Dunedin, J.1. In 1901 certain persons, among whom were the respondents, borrowed a sum of Rs. 19,999 from the Raja Narendra Lal Khan Bahadur and executed a mortgage in favour of his wife, Rani Mrinalini Debi. In 1906 the Rani put the mortgage in suit. Defences of various kinds were entered. The male appellant in this case acted as pleader for all the defendants and on their behalf effected a compromise of the suit. This compromise was dated February 19, 1907. Payments under the compromise not having been duly made, the Rani proceeded to execute afresh and some properties were sold, but eventually and before the decree was fully executed the Rani, on February 7, 1915, sold the unexecuted decree for Rs. 11,500 to the female appellant, who is the wife of the male appellant. Thereafter the female appellant proceeded to execute the decree. Objections were made by several of the judgment-debtors. It is not necessary for the purposes of the present appeal to follow minutely the progress of th...
Tag this Judgment!Shripathi Laxman Kshirsagar Vs. Balvantrao Krishna Chitnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR149
Norman Macleod, Kr., C.J.1. The question raised in these appeals is a very technical one. The document which required to be registered under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, as one of the parties was an agriculturist, was written and executed before the Sub-Registrar according to the provisions under Section 63A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The parties in whose favour the document was taken were described as Balvantrao, Shankarrao and Ganpatrao Chitnis, residing at Nigdi, by their Vahivatdar Rango Vislinu Aphale. He signed the declaration required by Rule 23 of the rules made under Section 61 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, as the Vahivatdar of those persons in his own handwriting. Objection was taken at the hearing of the suit, which was filed on this document that it had not been proved that it had been properly registered.2. The suit was accordingly dismissed in the trial Court. But by the appellate Court an order was passed that the decree dismiss...
Tag this Judgment!Brij NaraIn Vs. Mangla Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR500
Dunedin, J.1. The facts in this case may be very shortly stated. On March 4, 1908, Sita Ram granted a mortgage for Rs. 11,000 in favour of Raja Narain Brij Rai and Jagdish Narain Rai. The mortgage was secured on ancestral and joint property of which Sita Ram was at that time manager, the other members of the joint family being his two sons, minors. In 1912 the mortgagees brought a suit on the mortgage and obtained a decree ex parte. In 1913 the present suit was raised by the mother on behalf of her two minor sons (the elder has since become major to have it declared that the mortgage was not binding on them and that the decree granted was so far as they were concerned null and void.2. The mortgage in suit bears to have been executed in order to pay off two prior mortgages on the same property of date December 12, 1905, and June 19, 1907, respectively.3. In the suit the plaintiffs cited the two mortgages and their father Sita Ram, who had granted the mortgage. Sita Ram did not appear to...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gopalia Kallaiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom333; (1924)26BOMLR138
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. Gopalia Kallaiya who belongs to the South Kanara District Police, was charged before the Acting Third Presidency Magistrate with having committed an offence under Section 342, Indian Penal Code. The evidence showed that he had come to Bombay with a warrant to arrest one Giria Chinka. On his arrival in Bombay he filled in a form headed 'First Information of Cognizable Crime' in which he stated that he had been sent down to Bombay by his Sub-Inspector to execute four warrants in different cases. Since he had been in Bombay he had been making inquiries of these accused. At 8 o'clock he went to the complainant's place at Jenkins House, Apollo Bunder, and arrested him. He knew the complainant very well. His name was Giria Chinka, and he was concerned in a house-breaking and theft case committed in the year 1919. Before the Magistrate Gopalia said he could not positively identify the complainant and consequently he was discharged.2. The complainant then brought this ch...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalia Kallaiya Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1923
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.317
1. Gopalia Kallaiya who belongs to the South Kanara District Police, was charged before the Acting Third Presidency Magistrate with having committed an offence under Section 342, Indian Penal Code. The evidence showed that he had come to Bombay with a warrant to arrest one Giria Chinka. On his arrival in Bombay he filled in a form headed 'First Information of Cognizable Grime' in which he stated that he had been sent down to Bombay by his Sub-Inspector to execute four warrants in different cases. Since he had been in Bombay he had been making inquiries of these accused. At 8 o'clock he went to the complainant's place at Jenkins House, Apollo Bunder, and arrested him. He knew the complainant very well. His name was Giria Chinka, and he was concerned in a house-breaking and theft case committed in the year 1919. Before the Magistrate Gopalia said he could not positively identify the complainant and consequently he was discharged.2. The complainant then brought this charge against the Hea...
Tag this Judgment!Chaturbhuj Bhawanidas Vs. Deokaran Nanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom370; (1924)26BOMLR84; 79Ind.Cas.769
Lallubhai Shah, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Mulla on a petition to set aside an award. The facts which gave rise to the petition were these:--The petitioner purchased 600 bales of Oomra Cotton from the firm of Devkaran Nanji on September 11, 1922, for September delivery. The petitioner was not a member of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd., but the respondents, the firm of Devkaran Nanji, were members of that Association. The contract was expressly subject to the rules and regulations of the East India Cotton Association, Ltd. Apparently the petitioner sold these bales to the firm of N.V. Dossa & Co. and they sold to Sangidas Jesiram. The respondents gave delivery orders for 500 bales, but did not deliver 100 bales. These delivery orders were gassed on to N.V. Dossa and Co., and tendered to Sangidas, out of which he failed to take delivery of 400 bales and objected to 100 bales as not being of the contract quality. On October 5, 1922, Sangidas ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahmadbhai Peerbhai Vs. Bai Havabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom507; (1924)26BOMLR145
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The original applicants in this case were the widow and three daughters of One Haji Nabi, who died in or about the month of October 1922 at his residence, within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Broach. The application purported to be made under Act XIX of 1841. It stated that deceased had died leaving a considerable amount of property, that opponent No. 1, who was the nephew of the deceased, together with two daughters by a previous wife of the deceased residing with him, had taken into possession all the property of the deceased with the intention of appropriating it to himself, and prayed that an inventory of the estate and effects of the deceased Haji Nabi Miyaji should be made and some officer of the Court appointed as curator of the property belonging to the deceased. It is true that the applicants prayed for any other relief that might be deemed fit and proper to be granted. But that prayer can only be read in conjunction with the main prayer for ...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Deokaran Marwadi Vs. Dhondu Ananda Kunbi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom352; (1924)26BOMLR265
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. In this case the Collector acting under the powers given under Section 15 of the Bombay Mamlatdars' Courts Act (Bom. Act II of 1906 set aside an order made by the Mamlatdar in favour of the plaintiff in Vahivat Suit No. 2 of 1922. The Collector can only set aside such an order if he considers that it is illegal or improper. The ground on which the Collector set aside the order, according to the judgment, was that the Mamlatdar had entered upon complicated questions which were entirely outside the province of the Act, and which ought to have been referred to a civil Court. If that decision were to stand, then it practically deprives the Mamlatdars of the power to decide who should be in possession of the disputed property until the questions in dispute have been finally determined by the civil Court. However complicated the questions may appear to be, he is entitled to give possession to one party or the other. That is entirely within his jurisdiction There is not...
Tag this Judgment!Achyut Vishnu Patankar Vs. Tapibai Krishnaji Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1923
Reported in: AIR1924Bom310; (1924)26BOMLR103; 79Ind.Cas.753
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal raises a very curious point with regard to the procedure to be followed in cases where a review has been granted of the judgment of a Court, and the party obtaining the review has taken no steps to proceed further in the matter. There seems to be no authority on the point. The history of the case is as follows. The plaintiff filed a suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court for possession of certain property and obtained a decree. On appeal to the District Court, the decree of the lower Court was set aside and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff then applied for a review of the judgment of the appellate Court, and, on February 19, 1920, the District Judge granted the application. In the judgment as first written the District Judge not only granted the review application, but confirmed the decree of the lower Court by setting aside the decree of the appellate Court. But evidently it was pointed put to him that this was not the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »