Mumbai Court September 1925 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Karim Rajmahamad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1421
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the accused was convicted of failing to produce a license on demand by a police officer under Clause (c) of subs. 2 of Section 26 of Bombay Act VII of 1920. The District Magistrate refers the case to us on the ground that the reason for this failure was the fact that the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Poona, had suspended the accused's license, and that he had no authority to make this suspension under Sub-section (2) of the Act, read with the Commissioner C. D.'s Notification of December 18, 1920, which says that the duties assigned by the Act to the Commissioner of Police shall be performed by the District Superintendent of Police. He says that he has made inquiries with the District Superintendent of Police whether the Assistant Superintendent of Police had authority to suspend a license under Section 12(2) of the Act; and that the District Superintendent of Police reported that the Assistant Superintendent 'has no lawful authority to suspend a licens...
Tag this Judgment!Gordhandas Keshavlal Seth Vs. Dhirajlal Dalsukhram Seth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR467; 95Ind.Cas.81
Fawcett, J.1. In this ease the question is whether the plaintiff has established his title to a wall or kotda, and a strip of land adjacent to it measuring about nine feet in breadth. The trial Court found in his favour. The lower appellate Court reversed that decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. The question of ownership mainly turns on the construction of certain documents, which were produced in the trial Court. The two Courts have considered these documents in detail, and a question has been raised in this Court as to how far we are justified in second appeal in disturbing the finding of the lower Court that the documents and other evidence or circumstances did not establish the plaintiff's claim. That is a question which has been dealt with recently by the Privy Council in Midnapore Zamindary v. Uma Charan Mandal : (1923)25BOMLR1287 , p.c. where it is laid down that:-To ascertain the date at which a particular holding first began as a definite holding, i.e. essent...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhod Mayaram Vs. Bai Jayanti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR463; 95Ind.Cas.85
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. There is a private temple of Mahalaxmi at Godhra in the ancestral house of the parties. Some land was assigned to the goddess in Inam by the Seindia Government and the grant was confirmed by the British Government by a Sanadi Exhibit 45, which is aa follows :-It is hereby declared that the said land shall be continued for ever by the Brtish Government as the Nemnuk Inam property of Shri Mahalaxumi Mata goddesa on the following conditions:-that is to say, the vahivatdara of the said goddess shall continue faithful subjects of the British Government and shall make use of the income of the said land for defraying the expenses of the said institution and for the continuation thereof. In consideration of the fulfilment of which conditions the said land shall be continued for ever aa Nemnuk Inam and it is further declared that the said institution cannot give the said land in sale, gift, or by a deed of inheritance, or otherwise to any other person.2. The relation...
Tag this Judgment!Husseinsaheb Haidarsaheb Vs. Babaji Dhonddev Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR78
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. We think the Judge was right in following the decision in Chhotalal v. Nabibhai (1905) 7 Bom. L.R. 567 so that Babaji, one of the decree-holders who had a decree against Suleman Madar-bhai only, could, as against Husseinsaheb Haidersaheb, who had a decree against Suleman Maderbhai and the heirs of Madarbhai Tarubhai, claim rateable distribution in such of the assets held by the Court as could be found to belong to the share of Suleman Madarbhai. The present appellant says that the assets belonged entirely to the heirs of Madarbhai Tarubhai who were joined as defendants Nos. 2 to 4 in this suit. That question must be decided by the Judge in execution before he can finally decide the claim of Babaji to rateable distribution.2. We, therefore, allow the appeal to that extent and direct the Judge to decide what is the share of Suleman Madarbhai in the assets held by the Court. If the Court finds that Suleman Maderbhai had no interest in the assets then Babaji wil...
Tag this Judgment!Husensaheb Gajbarsaheb Vajirnaik Vs. Hasansaheb Sayad Abdul
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR75
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover by equitable partition as owners a one-third share in the suit property. They claimed that the defendant-respondent had conveyed to them by a registered sale-deed dated November 16, 1924, his right to the extent of one-third in the inam villages mentioned in the deed for a consideration of Rs. 5000. The suit was filed in 1915. The defendant denied the plaintiffs' claim in toto and averred that it was false and fraudulent; that the plaintiffs obtained the sale-deed sued on by misrepresentation and by taking advantage of his helplessness, illness, ignorance and want of worldly experience; that the defendant did not receive any amount from the plaintiffs for the sale-deed; that the plaintiffs fraudulently got a certain site at Belgaum inserted in the sale-deed for the purpose of getting it registered at Belgaum, though the site did not belong to the defendant; and that accordingly the deed was null and void and must be treated as ...
Tag this Judgment!Alamkhan Mahomedkhan Vs. Banemiya Rasul
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR459; 95Ind.Cas.39
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs-appellants are entitled to damages from the defend ant-respondent for malicious prosecution. The appellants succeeded in the trial Court but failed in first appeal.2. The parties are Mahomedans of Sangamnar, a town divided into several quarters, The appellants are the Panchas for the quarter called Naikwadpura and they are in management of the burial ground appertaining to the Municipality, to which they had, at the expense of the Mahomedans of that quarter, made an embankment costing Rs. 3000. This they sought to realise by contributions from the Mahomedana of that quarter and bad passed a resolution, which, however, is not in writing, to that effect. The respondent is a retired Police Prosecutor and had occupied a house outside that quarter but has lately purchased a house which is just within the quarter. On October 19, 1918, the respondent's infant died. He brought it for burial to the appellants' ground but was ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheshagiri Shambulinga Upadhya Vs. Manjaya Sannaya Shanbhog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR454; 94Ind.Cas.755
Fawcett, J.1. A question has been raised as to whether mesne profits subsequent to the date of the High Court decree, which have been awarded to the decree-holders, can be taken into consideration in making an estimate of the value under paragraph 2 of Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code. In our opinion, the answer to this is that they cannot. It has been held in Raoji Bhikaji v. Laxmibai I.L.R. (1919) 44 Bom. 104 following the case of Surendra Nath Roy v. Dwarka Nath Chakravarti I.L.R.(1916) Cal. 119 that the value under Section 110 ought to be ascertained as at the date of the High Court decree under appeal, and on that principle mesne profits subsequent to the decree cannot be taken into account. There is no practice of this Oourt allowing such mesne profits to be taken into account, and the practice of the Calcutta High Oourt, referred to in Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Anup Narain Singh (1918) 3 Pat. L.J. 377 covers only mesne profits up to the date of the decree of the appellate C...
Tag this Judgment!Bhimji N. Dalal Vs. B.B. and C.i. Railway Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR443; 94Ind.Cas.742
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The B.B. & C.I. Railway Co., hereinafter called the Company, took out a summons in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay against the defendant to answer in an action for debt-damages according to the following particulars of demand.Amount of fares and excess charges due and payable by you according to law, you having travelled on the plaintiff Company's Railway between church Gate and Malad and vice versa every day by First Glass from February 26, 1924, to April 1 1924, (as per statement and particulars annexed) without having with you a proper pass or ticket during the said period for the said journeys as required by law.' Rs. 342, the amount claimed, represented First Class fare for Rs. 171, and excess charges for a like amount.2. The suit was tried by the Fourth Judge who dismissed it with costs.3. The Full Court on a rule being granted to set aside the order of dismissal and to pass a decree for the Company made the rule absolute and passed a decree for Rs...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Mahipat Deshpande Vs. Balkrishna Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR456; 94Ind.Cas.760
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The petitioner's father in this case mortgaged the Kulkarni and Deshpande Watan lands to the opponent under two mortgage deeds, dated June 10, 1913, and August 6, 1914, respectively, the former by himself and as guardian of his minor sons including the petitioner, and the latter by himself alone, for cash consideration, The petitioner's father then instituted Suit No. 33 of 1920 in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, Athni, against the opponent for Recounts and redemption of the two mortgages under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Belief Act, The Subordinate Judge allowed redemption and passed an order that the plaintiff should continue to remain in possession of mortgaged land; that the plaintiff should pay to the defendant Rs. 2,210 and defendant's costs in this suit with interest on Rs. 1,460 from the date of suit till the date of realisation on or before June 8, 1921; and that on failure to pay to the defendant as stated above, defendant should apply ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheshagiri Shambhulinga Upadhya Vs. Manjayya Sanaya and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom265
Fawcett, J.1. A question has been raised as to whether mesne profits subsequent to the date of the High Court decree, which have been awarded to the decree-holders, can be taken into consideration in making an estimate of the value under paragraph 2 of Section 110 of the Civil P.C. In our opinion, the answer to this is that they cannot. It has been held in Raoji Bhikaji v. Laxmibai 1920] 44 Bom. 104following the case of Surendra Nath Roy v. Divarka Naih [1917] 44 Cal. 119 that the value under Section 110 ought to be ascertained as at the date of the High Court decree under appeal, and on that principle mesne profits subsequent to the decree cannot be taken into account. There is no practice of this Court allowing such mesne profits to be taken into account, and the practice of the Calcutta High Court, referred to in Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Anup Narain Singh [1918] 3 P L.J. 377 covers only mesne profits up to the date of the decree of the appellate Court. The decision of the Privy Counc...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »