Mumbai Court November 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.
Emperor Vs. Jinga Gamaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR111
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused was convicted under Section 381, Indian Penal Code, of the theft of gold and silver ornaments and clothes belonging to the complainant in whose service he had been for three years as a cook. The Magistrate convicted him, and as it was his first offence, ordered him to be released on a bond on probation of good conduct for a period of one year under Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code. The matter has been referred to this Court on the ground that as sentence of imprisonment is obligatory when an offence under Section 381, Indian Penal Code, has been proved, the Magistrate could not give the convicted person the benefit of Section 562, Criminal Procedure Code. We think that on a proper construction of Section 562, a first offender, provided the other provisions of the section apply, is entitled to the benefit of the section, even when without such provisions the Magistrate would be obliged to pass a sentence of imprisonment. Any other construction...
Govindaprasad Lalitaprasad Mishar Vs. Rindabai Lalitaprasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom289; (1925)27BOMLR365; 87Ind.Cas.472
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to obtain a declaration that the first defendant was not the legally adopted son of the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff disputed the factum of the adoption. That issue was found in the affirmative, but on the issue whether the adoption was valid, the Court held that the adoption was not valid, though in fact it had been made, because the adoptive father and the adopted son were of different gotra. Consequently the datta homam was essential to validate the adoption, and in this case it is not disputed that the datta homam had not been performed. If we were of opinion that the adoption was valid, it would have been necessary to consider the authorities at some length. But we agree with the judgment in the Court below that in this particular case the datta homam was necessary.2. The authorities are considered in the latest Edition of Mayne at pp. 205-208, and at the bottom of page 207 the conclusion is as follows : ' So far as it is possib...
Emperor Vs. Hanmant Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR704
Viscount Haldane, J. 1. I should like to make this observation. The power to entertain appeals here arises, not from the relation of this Board to the Court below, as a Court of criminal appeal, but as the Privy Council, advising the Sovereign with regard to the exercise of the prerogative. The prerogative is that remnant of the power of the Crown which remains to the Crown to interfere with Tribunals of Justice which does not exist in this country at all; it has passed away in the historic development of the constitution; it used to exist, and it does exist to some extent in the case of the Crown colonies, because they are managed directly by the Crown through ministers, but when one comes to self-governing dominions I should be very sorry to say that even the principles of Dillet's case could be applied to the constitution of Canada. The constitution of Canada and of Australia, taking those as illustrations, have so developed that they are virtually self-governing dominions, and it i...
Ranodip Singh Vs. Parmeshwar Pershad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR175
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dated July IS, 1921, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, affirming a decree dated March 22,1921, of the Subordinate Judge of Bhairach.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted on June 23, 1920, by the four sons of the sixth defendant, Thakur Prithi Singh, claiming possession of the village described in the plaint. The plaintiffs and their father are a joint Hindu family governed by the law of the Mitakshara, and it is the plaintiffs case that the village is the ancestral property of the joint family.3. On June 3, 1893, the plaintiffs* father purported to sell the village to Manjee Ram, who is represented in this suit by his descendants defendants Nos. 1 to 5. The seventh defendant claims as a mortgagee from defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 5.4. The plaintiffs contend that the sale is not binding on them as it was not made for legal necessity, and on this ground they claim a decree for possession.5. Of the man...
Fateh Singh Vs. Jagannath Baksh Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR725
Phillimore, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from concurrent judgments against them given by the Subordinate Judge of Bahraich and affirmed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh.2. It is a suit for possession of land, in which the defendants respondents raised as a first defence that the matter was res judicata, having already been decided between the same parties.3. Both Courts being of this opinion and having determined this issue, found it unnecessary to determine any of the other issues and dismissed the suit.4. The history of the case is as follows : The present appellants and plaintiffs with others filed a suit in July, 1908, against one Musammat War Kunwar, and the present defendant and respondent Jagannath Bakhsh Singh, and one Ganga Baksh, now represented by the defendant and respondent Bishunath Singh, in which they stated that Musammat Har Kunwar, being a Hindu widow, was in possession of her husband's property for the ordinary Hindu woman's estate, that ...
Ramling Parvataya Samble Vs. Bhagvant Sambhuappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1924
Reported in: AIR1926Bom375
Macleod, C.J.1. The question in this appeal is what is the proper construction to be placed on Exhibit 17, which the plaintiff contended is an agreement to sell and, therefore, is admissible in evidence without registration, in order to support his claim for specific performance of the agreement contained therein.2. The defendant contended that the document was compulsorily registrable under the Indian Registration Act 1908, and, therefore, was inadmissible in evidence, The trial Court held that the document did not require registration, and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The appellate Judge came to a contrary conclusion and dismissed the suit with costs in both Courts. The document is as follows:My undivided one third share in the property-(shop premises) has been sold to you for Rs. 2,500 in cash, the said amount having been received in sums by me from you from time to time, Only a registered sale-deed has remained to be executed and registered in your favour which I shall execute and...
Saiyid Manzur Hasan Vs. Saiyid Muhammad Zaman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR170
Dunedin, J.1. In the town of Aurangabad there are two sects of Mahomedans, the Shias and the Sunnis. These sects worship in the month of Moharram in a different manner. In particular the Shias conduct a procession along with various emblems, which it is not necessary to specify, all alluding to the martyrdom of Hasan and Husain, and as the procession proceeds they from time to time perform a ceremony called Matam which means that they stop for a little and wail.' The Sunnis also revere the martyrdom of Hasan and Husain but worship in a different way. In the town of Aurangabad from Mme immemorial the procession of the Shias has passed along a certain public road which passed behind the back of a mosque used by the Sunnis. In 1916 for the first time the Sunnis interfered with the procession and alleged that it disturbed their devotions in the mosque. A modus vivendi was arranged for a time. In order to prevent disturbances for the moment the magistrates passed a regulation for the year i...
Ambubai Hanmantrao Vs. Shankarsa Nagosa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR243
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff file ft Suit No. 143 of 1917 in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Hubli on a certain cause of action. Ho withdrew that suit with permission of the Court under Order XXIII, Rule 1, alleging that on account of the mis-reading of one of the issues framed by the Court he was not refuly with his evidence on the day fixed for trial of the case. The Court made the following order :-on condition that plaintiff pays defendants' costs and bears his own costs and pays defendants costs before filling a fresh suit, ho is under the circumstances mentioned in the application, permitted to withdraw with permission to file a fresh suit.2. Therefore the condition precedent to his being allowed to tile a fresh suit was that he should pay defendants' costs. However, without paying the defendants' costs, he filed fresh Suit No. 92 of 1919. He paid the costs three days before the day fixed for the hearing of the evidence in the ease. The Court dismissed the suit on t...
Ragho Laxman Lohar Vs. Govind Vaman Dhapre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: AIR1925Bom246; (1925)27BOMLR246; 87Ind.Cas.820
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was originally filed as a Small Cause Court suit by the plaintiffs. On the application of the defendant it was transferred to the regular list and became a regular suit until the record was closed. For reasons which do not appear to have been stated in writing the Judge re transferred the case back to the Small Cause Court list. He then found on the issues without giving any reasons and dismissed the suit with costs.2. That procedure was clearly irregular. There having been an order by a competent Court that the suit should be tried as a regular suit and not as a Small Cause Court suit, the Court would have no power to set aside that order and transfer the case back to the Small Cause Court list. The decree, therefore, must be set aside and the case must be remanded to the Subordinate Judge to continue the hearing from the time when the wrong order was made transferring the suit to the Small Cause Court list, The rule is made absolute with costs....
Duma Toma Rumav Vs. Nathu Farsha Kurel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR249
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this suit the plaintiffs sued for specific performance of the contract for sale of the suit land by the 1st defendant's brother Juzia which the plaintiffs said was entered into on December 5, 1910, by Juzia Rumav on the one hand and on the other by Farsha Degu Kurel, father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, and Simav Ina, husband of plaintiff No. 3 and brother of plaintiff No. 4, both dead at the time of the suit. The terms of the document on which the plaintiffs relied are set out at page 2 of the print. The effect of that document was that Farsha and Simav could within a period of ten years from the date of the document tender Rs. 1500 and demand a conveyance from Juzia. There are two ways in which the document can be read; (1) as an offer by Juzia which was to remain open for ten years acceptable by Farsha and Simav at their option; or (2) as an agreement by Juzia that he would hold the property for ten years at the disposal of Farsha and Simav and to sell t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »