Mumbai Court April 1924 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Charles John Walker
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR610; 83Ind.Cas.932
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. This a reference under Section 307, Criminal Procedure Code, by the Sessions Judge of Poona in the case of one Private C.J. Walker belonging to the King's Shropshire Light Infantry who was charged before a jury with culpable homicide under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, and was acquitted by a unanimous verdict of the jury. There is no dispute with regard to the facts which preceded the unfortunate death of a villager. Three soldiers in company with the accused went out of Poona on a shooting expedition. At the village of Lohogaon there was a dispute over a bird which had been shot by one of the soldiers. They asked a villager to take it out of the tank where it had fallen. The villager refused. In consequence one of the soldiers, Sharman, got annoyed and struck the villager on the chest and face. The villagers became threatening, so that his companions advised Sharman to run away. He went off, while the villagers asked the remaining soldiers to give their names ...
Tag this Judgment!Kadoth Ambu Nair Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR639
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of South Canara on November 25, 1913, as the karnavan, or Manager, of a Nair tarwad against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaration that certain lands situated in the forest tracts in the Kastargod Taluk belong exclusively to his tarwad, and for an injunction restraining the defendant from dealing in any manner with the said lands to the prejudice of the rights and possession of the plaintiff's tarwad.2. Their Lordships will have to refer more specifically in the course of their judgment to the allegations in the plaint, but it is sufficient at this stage to indicate the scope of the suit. The defendant denied the title which the plaintiff put forward; and the Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff had totally failed to establish the grounds on which he based his claim, and accordingly dismissed the suit. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Dist...
Tag this Judgment!The Midnapur Zamindary Company Ltd. Vs. Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR651
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants, The Midnapur Zamindary Company, Limited (which will be hereafter referred to as The Midnapur Company) against a decree, dated January 17, 1921, of the High Court at Calcutta, which affirmed a decree, dated August 19, 1915, of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia, by which the claim of the plaintiff, Kumar Naresh Narayan Roy, in Suit No. 557 of 1912, had been decreed with costs. The other parties to the litigation are Rani Hemanta Kumari Debi and the Secretary of State for India in Council, who are defendants and respondents, but they have not appeared and are not represented in this appeal.2. The suit in which this appeal has arisen was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia on August 8, 1912, by the plaintiff, who is of the Putia Raj family, and who claimed a decree for the partition of certain lands in which he and the Midnapur Company were co-sharers, a declaration that the Midnapur Company had no jote rights in any of t...
Tag this Judgment!Achalsingh Kesrisingh Vs. Dolatsingh Surajmalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom470; (1924)26BOMLR678; 83Ind.Cas.30
Pratt, J.1. This case has been the subject of a protracted litigation but the essential facts are few. In the year 1905 the District Magistrate being of opinion that the employment of two extra pagis in the village of Kamijla was necessary, required the Avalkarkun of Viramgam to take statements of the bhayats on the point. The Avalkarkun took down the statements of the bhayats (Exhibits 33 and 34), and they were not willing to employ two pagia. Thereafter the District Magistrate directed the plaintiff, who is the Chief of Patdi, to employ two pagis. This appears from the District Magistrate's order dated November 27, 1906, Exhibit 361 and the extract from the Barnishi of the Patdi Durbar which contains a summary of the correspondence on the subject between the Mamlatdar and the Durbar. The two pagis who were the nominees of the Patdi Durbar were appointed by the Collector. The plaintiff has been paying their wages, and seeks to recover a half share of the wages that he had paid for the...
Tag this Judgment!Narhar Govind NavaThe Vs. Balvant Hari Navathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom437; (1924)26BOMLR528
Shah, J.1. The question of law in this second appeal is whether the adoption of the plaintiff by Parvatibai after the death of her grand-son Dattu is valid. The relationship of the parties may be indicated by the following table:--Sakharam|__________________________________| |Govind=Parvati Hari| |Anant=Annapurnabai ___________________ | | |___________________ Balvant Vaman| | (Deft. 1) (Deft. 2)Dattu Anasuya2. Govind and Hari were divided: Govind's son Anant and Anant's wife Annapurnabai predeceased Govind. Govind died leaving a widow Parvati and a grandson Dattu and a granddaughter Anasuya. On Govind's death Dattu became the owner of the property. Dattu died unmarried: and his grandmother Parvati succeeded him. She adopted the plaintiff, who has filed the suit to enforce his rights as the adopted son of Govind against the representatives of Hari's branch. The fact of the adoption was held proved by the trial Court and not challenged in the lower appellate Court. Both the lower Courts...
Tag this Judgment!Mukundkrishna Govindkrishna Vs. Mohanlal Parvatishankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom514; (1924)26BOMLR620; 83Ind.Cas.622
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 12,390 odd and costs of the suit on the strength of a deed of mortgage dated November 20, 1884. He also prayed that if default of payment were made he should be allowed to recover the amount by sale. A deeree was passed in favour of the plaintiff that the defendant should pay the mortgage amount, and in default the pro-perty should be sold.2. The defendant has appealed. The first objection is that the lower Court erred in holding that he was not an agriculturist. He is a sharer in the Jahagir of the village under a Sanad Exhibit 71 which had already been the subject-matter for interpretation in a proceeding between the present parties in a suit filed by the Jahagirdars against the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, that suit was filed in the Second Class Subordinate Judge's Court, and consequently the question decided there could not be res judicata in this suit.3. Now it is clear that the defendant's income was partly due to the...
Tag this Judgment!Shiddubai Rudragauda Desai Vs. Nilapgauda Bharmagauda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom457; (1924)26BOMLR622
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. One Rudragauda bin Basangauda Desai of a village in the Parasgad Taluka District Dharwar died in 1909 leaving two minor widows and a very considerable estate. That year the Nazir of the District Court of Belgamn managed the Desai's property as his guardian during his life-time, and after his death the Collector on behalf of the Court of Wards continued to manage it during the minority of the widows. Nilubai, the senior widow, died in 1916. Shiddubai, the junior widow, filed Suit No. 333 of 1917 in the Court of the Additional First Class Subordinate Judge, Dharwar, against Nilappa-gauda, who, it is alleged, had been adopted by Nilubai the day before she died. She joined as second plaintiff Sanganagauda who is said to have been adopted in 1907. The plaintiff asked for a declaration that the adoption of Njlappagauda did not take place at all and was illegal and that the second plaintiff was the rightful owner of the plaint property in possession of the Court of Ward...
Tag this Judgment!Shiddubai Rudragauda Desai and anr. Vs. Nilapagauda Bharmagauda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1924
Reported in: 83Ind.Cas.616
1. One Rudragauda bin Basangauda Desai of a village in the Parasgad Taluka District Dharwar died in 1909 leaving two minor widows and a very considerable estate. That year the Nazir of the District Court of Belgaum managed the Desai's property as his guardian during his lifetime, and after his death the Collector on behalf of the Court of Wards continued to manage it during the minority of the widows. Nilubai, the senior widow, died in 1916. Shiddubai, the junior widow, filed Suit No. 333 of 1917 in the Court of the Additional First Class Subordinate Judge, Dharwar, against Nilappagauda, who, it is alleged, had been adopted by Nilubai the day before she died. She joined as second plaintiff Sangangauda who is said to have been adopted in 1907. The plaintiff asked for a declaration that the adoption of Nilappagauda did not take place at all and was illegal and that the second plaintiff was the rightful owner of the plaint property in possession of the Court of Wards. The plaintiff allege...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Amarsang Shivasangji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom452; (1924)26BOMLR436
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case owing to a report of August 31, 1922 from a Police Sub-Inspector the Court was requested to take proceeding against the two opposing parties mentioned in the case under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code, in order to prevent a breach of the peace with regard to a piece of land known by the name of 'Kambharwali' in the village of Adval, both parties laying claim to possession of the land. Proceedings t thereafter were started under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code The present petitioners claimed to be entitled as owners of the land marked B in the map before us as well as of the land marked A. The respondents disputed the petitioners' claim to A, and claimed that as being of their ownership and in their possession. No documentary evidence was recorded. The Magistrate said that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove the present possession of the land on either side, so that it would appear that the land marked A was open land not used f...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gala Mana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-02-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom453; (1924)26BOMLR434
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The accused in this case was committed for trial to the Sessions Court at Ahmedabad, charged with having committed theft of a purse containing Re. 1-2-0 from the pocket of the complainant, an offence punishable under Section 379, Indian Penal Code. A further charge was added under Section 75, Indian Penal Code, to which the accused pleaded guilty. Accordingly he was convicted and sentenced by the Additional Sessions Judge to rigorous imprisonment for five years under Sections 379 and 75, Indian Penal Code. We do not dispute that Section 75, Indian Penal Code, entitled the Judge to inflict so severe a sentence. But we think that the powers given to a Sessions Judge by that section must be exercised Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1924, against conviction and sentence passed by N.V. Desai, Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad, with a certain amount of discretion. Speaking for myself, I have noticed in the past that sentences have been inflicted under Section 75, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »