Mumbai Court January 1924 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.
Hari Bakhsh Vs. Babu Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1108
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree, dated July 2, 1917, of the Chief Court of the Punjab, which reversed a decree, dated May 15, 1914, of the District Judge of Delhi, and dismissed the suit. The suit is for the partition of property alleged by the plaintiff to be joint property of the parties.2. The parties are Hindus of the Bakkal Aggarwall caste and are subject to the law of the Mitakshara. The following-pedigree shows how the parties are related to each other:-- Devi Dutt = Jodh Raj = Died in 1903 1st wife = Jai Narain = 2nd wife. Sanahi Ram = Died 29th January, 1906.1st wife = Bishan Dayal = 2nd wife. Sri Ram. Babu Lal =Died 5th Died without Died sonless, DefendantDecember, 1909. issue. 21st may, 1908. Chait Ram Defendant.Brij Mohan = Musammat Indr. Murli Dhar = Musammat BasantiDied 22nd Died 15thJune, 1905. June, 1928. Banwari Lal. Hari Bakhsh. Died in 1903. Born in 1903. Plaintiff.3. Jai Narain and Bishan Dayal had daughters, to whom it is not necess...
Bhiku Krishna Badhade Vs. Keshan Ramji Badhade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1924
Reported in: 80Ind.Cas.512
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. We think the learned District Judge was right in following the Full Bench decision in Basappa v. Rayava 29 B. 91 : 6 Bom. L.R. 779 . In that case it was held that a widow re-marrying could succeed to the estate of her son by her former husband who died after her remarriage. We do not think that case can be distinguished from the present case merely because the widow succeeded to the estate of her daughter, and not to the estate of her son. It was suggested that there might be some difference if the son had taken by survivorship, which could not be the case with the daughter, as the daughter must necessarily take by inheritance. The fact remains, whether the estate has vested in a son or a daughter, that the mother succeeds to both of them as heir, and consequently, if she could succeed to the estate of her son, after she had re-married, she could equally succeed to the estate of her daughter. Considering that in Basappa v. Rayava 29 B. 91 : Bom. L.R. 779 the lear...
Mukta Vs. Dattu Mahadev
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom332; (1924)26BOMLR186
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by the complainant wife of Dattu Gawali for maintenance under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate passed the following order:--The husband of the applicant is willing to give her juwari four maunds, one lugada, Choli, and Rs. 12 cash every year. As he gives her maintenance I direct that the applicant should get the above maintenance every years from Dattu Mhadev of Narkhed. 2. The District Magistrate has referred the case to this Court with a request that the order should be set aside as not being in conformity with the provisions of Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code. We think that that section only permits of the Court directing a monthly payment of money, and that the present order directing a mixed payment in kind and in cash every year is contrary to the terms of the section. We, therefore, set aside the order, and direct the Magistrate to pass a proper order under Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code....
Meghji Vallabhdas Vs. Dayalji Lalji and Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom322; (1924)26BOMLR231
Fawcett, J.1. The facts in this ease are all admitted.2. The defendants occupied a godown on a lease from the plaintiff which expired on October 20, 1923. On that day the defendants sent a letter to the plaintiff saying that, as the Colaba Cotton Green was being removed to Sewri on November 1, they would vacate the godown on October 30. On the same date the plaintiffs attorneys replied to the defendants saying that if they did not vacate the godown during the course of that day they would have to give a proper notice to quit to the plaintiff, otherwise he would hold them responsible for all. damages and consequences, and further that the plaintiff did not accept their proposal to vacate the godown on October 30. A somewhat similar letter was sent by the plaintiff's solicitors on October 22, in which it was said that the plaintiff would insist upon a proper notice for giving quiet and peaceful possession, otherwise he would hole them responsible for all damages and consequences. On the ...
In Re: Ningappa Rayappa Ghotadki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom321; (1924)26BOMLR183
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think the rule must be made absolute. The sanction was given to prosecute the petitioner under Section 211 or Section 182, Indian Penal Code, the facts being that the petitioner had made a complaint charging one L.V. O'Brien with criminal breach of trust. The Magistrate without examining the complainant, as he was bound to do under Section 203, Criminal Procedure Code, dismissed the complaint. Then he called upon the present petitioner to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for an offence under Section 211 or Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. If the complaint was not disinisssed according to law, then the complainant would not be convicted of bringing a false charge. The only question on which I had any doubt was whether on this application in revision for setting aside the order granting sanetion, wo could hold that the order dismissing the complaint was wrongly made. Undoubtedly if the complainant had appeared before us and asked us to set as...
In Re: Nagji Dula
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom320; (1924)ILR48Bom358; 81Ind.Cas.614
1. Three persons were charged before the Honorary First Class Magistrate of Amod with having committed an offence under Section 324 and Section 324 read with Section 114, Indian Penal Code. The first accused was discharged. The second and third accused voluntarily confessed the offence and asked for mercy. The Magistrate said: 'Considering the facts mentioned above and that both the accused have voluntarily confessed the offence, I am inclined to be lenient with them. Besides the circumstances of the case also require me to be carefully moderate in passing the punishment.' Accused No. 2 was accordingly sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Accused No. 3 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15 and in default to be imprisoned for one week.2. The complainant applies to this Court under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code, that the sentences should be enhanced. Speaking for myself, I do not think that according to any view we may take...
Dhanji Natha Vs. Dhuma Hiraji Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom382; (1924)26BOMLR277
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The few facts which have given rise to this appeal are these. One Piraji died leaving two widows Deoba and Dlmma. Deoba had a daughter named Chindhi. On April 16, 1911, Deoba and Dhuma made a gift of the property in suit in favour of Chindhi. Deoba died on November 10, 1918, and the next day Chindhi died. The present suit was filed by Dhuma to recover possession of the property which was gifted by her and Deoba to Chindhi. Defendant who is the daughter of Chindhi claims to be entitled to Chindhi's interest. The trial Court held the gift to be invalid and decreed the plaintiff's claim for possession. The lower appellate Court decreed possession of a moiety in favour of the plaintiff on the footing that Dhuma was entitled to a moiety of the property in respect of which Deoba had an interest during her life-time, that interest having come to an end on her death. In effect a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff on the footing that she was the heir after Deoba...
Bai Kamala Vs. Revashankar Ranchhod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom350; (1924)26BOMLR249
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. One Vidyaram died on July 30, 1897, leaving three daughters, Ruxmani, Ichha and Mahalaxmi. He left a will, dated June 22, 1807, whereby he disposed of his property, and with regard to certain property, which is the subject matter of this suit, ho made dispositions in favour of the daughters. At the date of the will Ruxmani was a childless widow, while lchlta and Mahalaxmi were married. Thereafter Mahalaxmi had a son who predeceased her. She died in 1908, while Ichha died in 1904, leaving a daughter. The property in suit was claimed by the tirst and second defendants as reversioners to Vidyaram, while the plaintiffs are the husband of Mahalaxmi, her two daughters and the daughter of Ichha.2. The question in the suit, therefore, is what interests did the daughters take under the will of Vidyaram. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. The learned Assistant Judge in appeal dismissed the suit.3. There are considerable difficulties in construing ...
Emperor Vs. Sale Mahomed Haji Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR178
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The applicant in this case is the owner of certain premises at Don Tad street consisting of a ground-floor and three upper floors. At the top of the building there is a storage tank intended to supply water to the flushing tanks of the water closets below. It is admitted that in the present circumstances there is not sufficient pressure in the main for the water to rise to the storage tank, which, therefore, could only be kept filled with water brought up by artificial means.2. On March 23, 1923, the applicant was served with a notice under the signature of the Deputy Health Officer, B-ward. The notice recited that upon inspection and examination it had been found that the water closets at the applicant's above-mentioned premises were not in good order or condition inasmuch as they were required to be kept in good order. That by itself is not very explicit. However the applicant was required within seven days from the service of notice to maintain such water...
Sale Mahomed Haji Ahmed Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom337; 81Ind.Cas.616
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The applicant in this case is the owner of certain premises at Don Tad street consisting of a ground-floor and three upper floors. At the top of the building there is a storage tank intended to supply water to the flushing tanks of the water-closets below. It is admitted that in the present circumstances there is not sufficient pressure in the main for the water to rise to the storage tank, which, therefore, could only be kept filled with water brought up by artificial means.2. On March 23, 1923, the applicant was served with a notice under the signature of the Deputy Health Officer, B-ward. The notice recited that upon inspection and examination it had been found that the water-closets at the applicant's above-mentioned premises were not in good order or condition inasmuch as they were required to be kept in good order. That by itself is not very explicit. However, the applicant, was required within seven days from the service of notice to maintain such water-cl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »