Mumbai Court December 1925 Judgments
Dhairyasingh Gordhandas Vs. Kissandas Tribhovandas Mangaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-25-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR362; 94Ind.Cas.104
Marten J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Shah dismissing the suit of the minor plaintiffs, who sought to set aside a compromise decree passed in four suits by Mr. Justice Fawcett on December 13, 1922. The plaintiffs are the minor sons of Gordhandas, defendant No. 2, and were concerned in disputes between Gordhandas and his sons on the one hand and his brother Kissondas on the other hand as to various assets in which his father.Tribhovandas and his grand-father Sir Mangaldas had been interested. One main point of controversy was whether these assets were ancestral or self-acquired. Sir Mangaldas died on March 9, 1890, and Tribhovandas on April 5, 1920. It is material to observe that Kissondas was born in Sir Mangaldas's life-time, butthat Gordhandas was not born until after the death of Sir Mangaldas, and further that the eldest son of Gordhandas was born in 1914. Kissondas has no son.2. Sir Mangaldas had two other sons Purshottamdas and Jag-mohandas, but for the p...
Tag this Judgment!Dhairyasingh Gordhandas and ors. Vs. Kissandas Tribhovandas Mangaldas ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-25-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom291
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Shah dismissing the suit of the minor plaintiffs, who sought to set aside a compromise decree passed in four suits by Mr. Justice Fawcett on December 13, 1922.2. The plaintiffs are the minor sons of Gordhandas, Defendant No, 2, and were concerned in disputes between Gordhandas and his sons on the one hand and his brother Kissondas on the other hand as to various assets in which his father Tribhovandas and his grand father Sir Mangaldas had been interested. One main point of controversy was whether these assets were ancestral or self-acquired. Sir Mangaldas died on March 9, 1890, and Tribhovandas on April 5, 1920. It is material to observe that Kissondas was born in Sir Mangaldas's lifetime, but that Gordhandas was not born until after the death of Sir Mangaldas, and further that the eldest son of Gordhandas was born in 1914. Kissondas has no son.3. Sir Mangaldas had two other sous Purshottamdas and Jagmohandas, but for the...
Tag this Judgment!Daulatsing Bapusing Raul Vs. Ratna Anandsing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR986; 97Ind.Cas.673
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of Khandesh affirming the order of the Subordinate Judge of Nandurbar, who had decreed the plaintiffs' claim and directed that they should be put in possession of certain lands for their maintenance.2. There are two main disputes advanced in the appeal before us, namely, first, whether the lower Courts were entitled to come to the conclusion which they did in favour of the plaintiffs having regard to the pleadings in the case and the issues which were raised, and, secondly, whether, in any event, their claim was barred by an arbitration award in favour of the defendant. I will deal with the second point first.3. This arbitration award has been set aside on the ground of the alleged misconduct of the arbitrator in taking into consideration his personal knowledge of the history and customs of the family, in which certain disputes had occurred between the plaintiffs and the defendant, and of which family the arbitrator...
Tag this Judgment!Daulatsing Bapusing Raul Vs. Ratna Anadsing and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom527
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of Khandesh affirming the order of the Subordinate Judge of Nandurbar, who had decreed the plaintiff's' claim and directed that they should be put in possession of certain lands for their maintenance. There are two main disputes advanced in the appeal before us, namely, first, whether the lower Courts were entitled to come to the conclusion which they did in favour of the plaintiffs having regard to the pleadings in the case and the issues which were raised, and, secondly, whether, in any event, their claim was barred by an arbitration award in favour of the defendant. I will deal with the second point first. This arbitration award has been set aside on the ground of the alleged misconduct of the arbitrator in taking into consideration his personal knowledge of the history and customs of the family, in which certain disputes had occurred between the plaintiff's and the defendant, and of which family the arbitrator w...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Framji Bomanji Banaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR291
Madgavkar, J.1. The appellant was found in the streets quarrelling with one Kaikobad. The police proceeded against him and sent him on a police report under Section 122 of the City of Bombay Police Act. In the course of the trial the learned Magistrate altered the charge to one under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code and has convicted him to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to be bound over in a sum of Rs. 100 for one year.2. The only substantial argument for the appellant is that Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code is a non-cognizable offence and therefore in the absence of a complaint from Kaikobad to the Magistrate, the conviction and sentence are wrong.3. For the Crown the Government Pleader relies on Section 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are of opinion on the whole, following Dasarath Rai v. Emperor I.L.R. (1909) Cal 869 that Section 246 authorises the Magistrate to follow the course be actually adopted in this case. And it will be observed that even if Kaikob...
Tag this Judgment!The Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Gulam HusseIn Ahmad Gomajee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR714
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. References Nos. 134 and 139 under the Land Acquisition Act were tried together by the Assistant Judge of Thana.2. In Reference No, 134 the land measured fourteen acres twenty-five gunthas. The Judge increased the Collector's award by Rs. 34,879-2-6. In Reference No. 139 the land consisted of thirty-six acres eight gunthas of hill land and thirty-three gunthas of flat land. The Judge increased the Collector's ' award by Rs. 79,524-12-6. 3. Government have appealed.4. The lands under acquition consisted of two hills which are called the Vadvan and Malad hills respectively. 5. It is admitted that beneath the surface of the hills there was good quarrying stone, but, at the time of the notification on February 10, 1921, no quarries had ever been worked therein, 6. The land itself would have only a nominal value of something like Rs. 100 an acre. The issue then was, what incraased value would a purchaser give for the land with a view to opening out and working qua...
Tag this Judgment!Framji Bomanji Banaji Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom255
Madgavkar, J.1. The appellant was found in the streets quarrelling with one Kaikobad. The police proceeded against him and sent him on a police report under Section 122 of the City of Bombay Police Act. In the course of the trial the learned Magistrate altered the charge to one under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code and has convicted him to one month's rigorous imprisonment and to be bound over in a sum of Rs. 100 for one year. The only substantial argument for the appellant is that Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code is a non-cognizable offence and, therefore, in the absence of a complaint from Kaikobad to the Magistrate, the conviction and sentence are wrong.2. For the Crown the Government Pleader relies on Section 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are of opinion on the whole, following Dasarath Rai v. Emperor [1909] 36 Cal. 869 that Section 246; authorizes the Magistrate to follow the course he actually adopted in this case. And it will be obesrved that even if Kaikobad...
Tag this Judgment!Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Gulam HusseIn Ahmad Gomajee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom433
Macleod, C.J.1. References Nos. 134 and 139 under the Land Acquisition Act were tried together by the Assistant Judge of Thana. In Reference No. 134 the land measured fourteen acres twenty-five gunthas. The Judge increased the Collector's award by Rs. 34,879-2-6. In Reference No. 139 the land consisted of thirty-six acres eight gunthas of hill land and thirty-three gunthas of flat land. The Judge increased the Collector's award by by Rs. 79,524-12-6. Government have appealed. The lands under acquisition consisted of two hills which are called the Vadvan and Malad hills respectively. It is admitted that beneath the surface of of the hills there was good quarrying stone, but, at the time of the notification on February 10, 1921, no quarries had ever been worked therein. The land itself would have only a nominal value of something like Rs. 100 an acre. The issue then was : What increased value would a purchaser give for the land with a view to opening out and working quarries therein at s...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kutubuddinkhan Ashrafkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR281
Marten, J.1. In this ease the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Poona, agreed with the unanimous verdict of the jury finding accused Nos. 1 and 3 guilty of forgery of a will of one Shahjadi Begum, who died on the evening of May 9, 1925. There were other charges of extortion practised on Syed Husein, her maid (Ex. 2), and of misappropriation of certain monies. But on those two latter charges, the accused were acquitted. 2. Now the verdict of the jury being unanimous it is conceded that on appeal that verdict must stand, subject to well recognised but limited principles on which such verdict can be upset.3. It is conceded by counsel for the accused in his candid and telling speech that the summing up of the learned Judge was a facie one so far as it went. The only criticism passed upon it was one really of omission in some two or three points. Only one of these points appears to us to have any substance in it and it is more perhaps a point of mis-reception of evidence than any mere de...
Tag this Judgment!Vasantrao Govindrao Prabhakar Vs. Nanabhai Sadanand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR347; 94Ind.Cas.96
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs filed this suit for the redemption of two properties, hereinafter called the Girgaon property and the Mahim property respectively, after taking an account of the two mortgages mentioned in the plaint. The following pedigree is necessary for the purposes of this judgment, Madhoba Hsrischandra | Atmaram | -------------------------------------------- | | | Ganpatrao Anandrao Shamrao =Manekbai | ------------------------------------------------- | | | | Wamanrao Ramrao Vinayakrao Madhavrao =Bablibai | Sushilabai2. The original plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3 were Wamanrao, Vinayakrao and Madhavrao, while plaintiffs Nos. 4 and 5 were the executors of Maneckbai widow of Gunpatrao.3. In 1869 Madhoba negotiated with one Shrikrishna Naranj for a loan of Rs. 82,000 to be secured on the Girgaon property. An agreement was arrived at whereby Shrikrishna Naranji was to advance Rs. 82000 on a deposit of the title deeds of the Girgaon property and Madhoba was to purcha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »