Mumbai Court June 1923 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.
Maharaja of Kolhapur Vs. Bala Maharaj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1923
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR252
Viscount Haldane, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from a decision of the High Court at Bombay on a question referred to it by the Government of Bombay, under Section 12 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act (X of 1876). The question referred was whether the application in or about the year 1864 of the Summary Settlement under Bombay Acts II and VII of 1863 to certain lands then held by Shri Tatya Maharaj, which subsequently devolved on the late Baba Maharaj, was valid and legal. These Acts provided for the settlement of claims to exemption from payment of land revenue and for the guarantee of a title in perpetuity to the holder of the land, his heirs and assigns, without restriction by Government as to adoption, succession or transfer. The Acts applied to holders of land the freedom of which from payment of land revenue had not been the subject of formal adjudication, where the holders had consented to submit the terms and conditions of holding to summary settlement. But the Acts ...
Laxman Babaling Gurva Vs. Vishram Mahadev Rane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1923
Reported in: AIR1925Bom209; 76Ind.Cas.629
1. In this case the plaintiff sued for an injunction permanently restraining the defendant from obstructing him in worshipping the deity in question, in doing every other business in connection with the deity and appropriating the profits at the temple of the deity, on the basis that he was entitled to all those rights to the exolusion of the defendant. The defendant's case was that the plaintiff was merely his servant, and that the plaintiff had no right as alleged by him. He further pleaded that as Mankari he was entitled to all the rights that the plaintiff claimed in connection with this temple,2. Among the issues raised on those pleadings the 1st issue is in these terms: 'Is plaintiff a rightful worshipper of the deity? And is he entitled to appropriate the incomeavailableat the temple as alleged? The trial Court found this issue in favour of the plaintiff, and after dealing with the other issues as to whether a suit of this character was maintainable under Section 9 of the Civil ...
Midnapore Zamindary Co. Vs. Uma Charan Mandal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR1287
Sumner, J.1. Their Lordships do not desire to hear the respondents. The point arising for decision on this appeal is a short one. In the group of suits, which the appellants brought in India, the question which, for the purpose of to-day, was the material one to be considered was this :-At what date is the under-tenure, of which they had become purchasers at a sale under a decree for rent, to be taken to have originated?It was in connection with a prayer to have encumbrances cleared off that this question arose, and according to the date fixed, earlier or later, they would be able to clear off more encumbrances or fewer. Now to ascertain the date, at which a particular holding first began to be held as a definite holding, is essentially a question of fact, and must depend on evidence. That evidence may be, and naturally is, documentary, but the documents admitted in evidence upon that question are really historical materials, and although they have to be construed, and if possible unde...
Alcock, Ashdown and Company Limited Vs. the Chief Revenue Authority of ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR920
Phillimore, J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on October 21, 1920, discharging with costs a rule nisi directed to the Chief Revenue Authority of Bombay, whereby the Authority was called upon to show cause why he should not be ordered to refer to the Court for its decision certain questions stated in Exhibit D to a petition presented to him, or in the alternative why he should not hear and determine according to law the application of the petitioners.2. The following is the matter in dispute, The applicants for the rule, Alcock, Ashdown and Company, Limited, the present appellants, were called upon under the Indian Excess Profits Duty Act, 1919, to make a statement of their profits for the year 1918. Under the powers given them by the Act they elected to have the standard of their profits ascertained upon an average of the four years 1913, 1914, 1916 and 1917. They thereupon made a return of the average capital and the average profits of...
Annada Mohan Roy Vs. Gour Mohan Mullick
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-04-1923
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR1269
Sumner, J.1. Three points have been argued on these appeals, one by Mr. de Gruyther, the leading counsel for the appellant, and two others by Dr. Abdul Majid, the junior counsel.2. The plaintiff, the present appellant, had agreements with three persons, who are the respondents, only two of whom, however, appear, by counsel, under which he purported with great elaboration to purchase from them their expectations under the will of their uncle, or alternatively their rights as his nephews expectant upon the termination of the surviving widows' rights in the property of the uncle, and among many other purposes which are recited in this agreement, for which advances are agreed to be made, one, and apparently the principal one, was that an appeal might be prosecuted ultimately to His Majesty in Council for the purpose of establishing a will which the deceased was said to have made. Unfortunately their Lordships, affirming the decision in the Court below, found that that will was a forgery. T...
KhairuddIn and ors. Vs. Sahu Gulab Das and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-01-1923
Reported in: 74Ind.Cas.220
Ryves, J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that the sale-deed passed by deceased defendant No. 1 who was the adoptive father of the plaintiff in favoui of the defendant No. 2 was void, and to recover possession of the property in suit. In the alternative the plaintiff sued for possession of half the suit property on partition. The suit has been dismissed in both the Courts.2. The plaintiff was adopted by Ghenappa, the first defendant, on the 30th November 1903, at which time the plaintiff was a major. Exhibit 50 is the adoption deed and it is on the interpretation of a particular passage in that deed that the decision in this suit depends.3. For the plaintiff it was contended that the material portion of the deed ran as follows:You have acquired whatever right and authorities a natural son should have acquired had I got any, and you have from to-day become the owner of the property moveable and immoveable. You should stay with us and take care of us as long as we, that is, I and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›