Mumbai Court October 1925 Judgments
Hanmantbhat Shankarbhat Nargund Vs. Basappa Chanbasappa Hasabi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR738
Fawcett, J.1. In my opinion, when this appeal was entered on the Court's board as fixed for April 15, 1924, it must be taken that there was in effect an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal to that particular day. The fixing of this notice on the board is no doubt primarily a notice to the appellant's pleader, but it is also accessible to the general public; and that being so, the respondent might thereby get notice that he still had an opportunity of appearing on the 15th. It seems to me that no practice of the Court, such as is relied upon by the District Judge, can avail against the words of Order XLI, Rule 16, by which if the respondent appears on the date to which the hearing may be adjourned he is entitled to be heard. I do not agree with the argument of Mr. Nilkant that the fixing of the notice on the board was merely a matter for the convenience of the Court, and that the respondent not having appeared on the date specified in the notice was not entitled to the benefit of t...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Anandrao Khatake Vs. Laxmibai Daji Khatake
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR740; 95Ind.Cas.864
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether, as held by the lower Court, the plaintiff-respondent Lakahmibai, widow of Daji, is entitled to recover possession, with mesne profits of the lands in suit.2. It is common ground that it has been the custom of the family for these lands to go with the Patilki watan which is again to go to the eldest member of the family (i.e., vadil). The common ancestor Babaji had three sons, Daji, husband of plaintiff-respondent No. 1, Vithu, father of defendant No. 1; and Ramohandra, grand-father of defendant No. 3, appellant. Daji was the officiating Patil watandar, and, admittedly, had posession, and was in enjoyment of the lands until February 28, 1886. From his death, the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, with the consaat of the representatives of the other two branches, was, as the widow of the last male holder, appointed as the representative watandar Patil by Government under Section 2 of Bombay Act V of 1886. The plaintiff's case is that she t...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Anandrao Khatake Vs. Laxmibai Daji Khatake and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom356
Mdgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether, as held by the lower Court, the plaintiff-respondent, Lakshmibai, widow of Daji, is entitled to recover possession, with mesne profits of the lands in suit.2. It is common ground that it has been the custom of the family for these lands to go with the patilki watan which is again to go to the eldest member of the family (i.e., vadil). The common ancestor Babaji had three sons : Daji, husband of Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1; Vithu, father of Defendant No. 1; and Eamchandra grandfather of Defendant No. 3, appellant. Daji was the officiating patiwatandar and admittedly had possession and was in enjoyment of the lands until February 28, 1886. Upon his death the Plaintiff-Respondent No. 1, with the consent of the representatives of the other two branches, was, as the widow of the last male holder, appointed as the representative Watandar Patil by Government under Section 2 of Bombay Act V of 1886. The plaintiff's case is that she took ove...
Tag this Judgment!Ambanna Dharappa Akkavagol Vs. Kallappa Shivlingappa Alligi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom327
Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiffs arrested the defendant in execution of the decree in Suit No. 382 of 1921 passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Bijapur. The defendant was described in the decree as a 'trader'; and the defendant who consented to a decree being passed against him in terms of the compromise is now claiming the trial of an issue whether or not he is an agriculturist. When he was arrested in execution of the decree, he claimed protection under Section 21 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, which provides that no agriculturist shall be arrested or imprisoned in execution of a decree for money passed whether before or after this Act comes into force.2. The Judge thought it was decided in Mulji v. Goverdhandas A.I.R. 1923 Bom. 36 that the defendant cannot raise a contention that he is in agriculturist in execution, if he has hot done so at the hearing. Accordingly, de directed that notice under Order 21 Rule 37, should issue. Now in that case an ex-parte decree ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Fakirbhai Nathubai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR92
Fawcett, J.1. The petitioner was charged with gaming in contravention of Section 12 of Bombay Act IV of 1887, which covers the case of any person found gaming in any public street, or thoroughfare, or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access, or in any race course. The allegation against him was that he was found by the police accepting Ank Satta bets in Cavel street. A police constable gave evidence that the accused was sitting on a chair which was half in and half outside of a shop; that persons, who staked money with him, did so from the road; that he accepted the money and passed it to another person who was inside the shop, registering the names of those who staked the money. The constable went up and arrested him after he had just accepted a bet from a man, who was accused No. 2 in the case. The petitioner immediately threw down the money he had so received, and it was subsequently found on the road. Another police constable supported the former witne...
Tag this Judgment!Ravishankar Jagjivan Vs. Savailal Krishnalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR89
Fawcett, J.1. We are asked to interfere as a Court of revision in a case where the applicant has been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 75 as compensation under Section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He charged the accused in the Base with offences punishable under Sections 341, 379 and 427, Indian Penal Code, in respect of his a pulling down a privy, which the complainant was using under a claim of right. The complainant's appeal to the Sessions Court has been dismissed, and the essence of the Court's judgment is given in the following words:- When the accused was excluded from the use of the privy by a person who had a bona fide title, he did not protest or send the accused a notice, but immediately rushed to the Magistrate's Court charging the accused not merely with wrongful restraint (for which there might have been some justification) but also with mischief and theft. The evidence makes it clear that the accused had a bona fide claim to the property and yet he charged him with mi...
Tag this Judgment!Fakirbhai Nathubai Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom149
Fawcett, J.1. The petitioner was charged with gaming in contravention of Section 12 of Bombay Act IV of 1887, which covers the case of any person found gaming in any public street, or thoroughfare, or in any place to which the public have or are permitted to have access, or in any racecourse. The allegation against him was-that ho was found by the police accepting. Ank Satta bets in Cavel Street. A police constable gave evidence that the accused was sitting on a chair which was half in and half outside of a shop; that persons, who staked money with him, did so from the road; that he accepted the money and passed it to another person who was inside the shop, registering the names of those who staked the money. The constable went up and arrested him after he had just accepted a bet from a. man who was Accused No. 2 in the case. The petitioner immediately threw down, the money he had so received, and it was subsequently found on the road. Another-police constable supported the former-witn...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Ganesh Jog and anr. Vs. Ramabai Venkatesh Jog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-06-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom351
Fawcett, J.1. The appellants say that they are entitled in execution proceedings to prove that they are agriculturists, and that therefore the provisions of Section 20 and Section 71 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act are applicable in their case. The decree that wag passed against them was one granting an application to file an award and passing a decree in terms of the award. No question of the status of the defendants as agriculturists or otherwise was raised either in the proceedings prior to the award or in the proceedings in Court after the filing of the award, and such a question would not have been relevant. The case of Mulji v. Goverdhandas A.I.R. 1923 Bom. 36 which has been relied upon by the lower Court in support of its view that the appellants, Defendants Nos. 5 and 8, cannot now plead that they are or were agriculturists, is not applicable, because it cannot be said that it has already been impliedly decided that they are not agriculturists. But the question still ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Shanta Vs. Umrao Amir Malek
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We answer the first question referred to us by the Bench in the negative, In Satish Chandra Chakravarti v. Ram Doyal De I.L.R. (1920) Cal. 388 it was held by a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court 'that a defamatory statement, on oath or otherwise, by a party to a judicial proceeding falls within Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, and is not absolutely privileged. Under Clause 30 of the Letters Patent, 1865, the provisions of such Code must be followed, and the Court cannot engraft thereon exceptions derived from the Common Law of England or based on public policy.' Every case on the subject has been most exhaustively dealt with by the learned Acting Chief Justice and it would be superfluous for us to add anything to what has been said in that case. We think accordingly that the decision in Queen-Empress v. Babaji I.L.R.1892 17 bom. 127 was wrongly decided, and that the decision in Queen-Empress v. Balkrishna Vithal I.L.R.(1893) 17 Bom. 573 should have b...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Flora Sassoon Vs. Ardeshir H. Mama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR126
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. [His lordship first examined in detail the facts in the case and reached the conclusion that there was no concluded contract between the parties. The judgment then proceeded:] But even if we thought there was a concluded contract, we do not think the learned Judge has correctly interpreted the law regarding damages claimed in the alternative in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immoveable property. And as the case may go to a higher tribunal I should like to express my views on the proper construction of Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, which rune as follows:-Any person suing for the specific performance of a contract may also ask for compensation for its breach, either in addition to, or in substitution for, such performance.If in any such suit the Court decides that specific performance ought not to be granted, but that there is a contract between the parties which has been broken by the defendant and that the plaintiff ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »