Mumbai Court September 1925 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Lahanu Manaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom118; (1925)27BOMLR1419
Fawcett, J.1. In this case the evidence is that the two accused prevented the complainant from using a mot to which he had yoked his bullocks on the slope to a well, which existed for that purpose The complainant stated in his evidence that the accused obstructed him by sitting on the slope and saying that they would not allow the mot to be used. The complainant had purchased a share entitling him to the use of the mot on this well. The accused objected to his doing so, until he had paid an amount alleged to be due on account of his share of expenses on the well. The two accused were convicted and sentenced: accused No. 1 to pay a fine of Rs. 50, and accused No. 2 to pay a fine of Rs. 20.2. The Sessions Judge, Nasik, refers the Case to us under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code with a recommendation that the conviction of the two accused may be set aside, He says the case is similar to that of Emperor v. Rama Lala : (1912)15BOMLR103 . There the accused had constructed a hedge ...
Tag this Judgment!Rachel BenjamIn Vs. BenjamIn Solomon Benjamin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR328; 94Ind.Cas.59
Crump, J.1. This is a suit between a husband and a wife of the Jewish persuasion. The wife, who is the plaintiff, seeks for relief against the defendant, the husband, on the ground of Cruelty and adultery. The facts which are admitted are as follows:-2. The families of the parties live in Bombay. On August 12, 1918, there was an agreement in writing between the fathers of the two parties whereby each agreed to contribute Es. 10,000, the whole sum of Rs. 20,000 to be invested in the joint names of the two parties. This sum of Rs, 20,000 was appirently intended to be the wife's dowry (Ex. 7), That agreement is the starting point of the history of this ease and it is clear that the intention expressed in this writing was never departed from but that full effect was not given to it. Sometime in March 1919 War Bonds of the face value of Rs. 20,000 were purchased. To this sum plaintiffs father contributed Rs. 10,000 and the defendant Rs. 10,000. Bonds of the face value of Rs. 10,000 were bou...
Tag this Judgment!Bachel BenjamIn Vs. BenjamIn Solomon Benjamin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom169
Crump, J.1. This is a suit between a husband and a wife of the Jewish persuasion. The wife, who is the plaintiff, seeks for relief against the defendant, the husband, on the ground of cruelty and adultery. The facts which are admitted are as follows:The families of the parties live in Bombay. On August 12, 1918, there was an agreement in writing between the fathers of the two parties whereby each agreed to contribute Rs. 10,000, the whole sum of Rs. 20,000 to be invested in the joint names of the two parties. This sum of Rs. 20,000 was apparently intended to be the wife's dowry (Ex. 7). That agreement is the starting-point of the history of this case and it is clear that the intention expressed in this writing was never departed from, but that full effect was not given to it. Some time in March 1919 War Bonds of the face value of Rs. 20,000 were purchased. To this sum plaintiff's father contributed Rs. 10,000, and the defendant Rs. 10,000. Bonds of the face value of Rs. 10,000 were bou...
Tag this Judgment!Chandulal Maganlal Vs. Motilal Harilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom43; (1925)27BOMLR1492; 92Ind.Cas.545
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 6721 and costs and interest on the footing of a registered mortgage-deed dated January 23, 1923, for Rs. 6500. The defendant admitting the mortgage pleaded that he had not received a certain sum of Rs, 2600 as a part of the consideration. The First Glass Subordinate Judge held that this plea was bad, and directed that after taking an account of what was due on the mortgage the defendant should pay Rs. 6721 and costs of the suit with interest at nine per cent from the date of suit till repayment within six months from the date of the decree. In default plaintiff to recover this sum by the sale of the mortgaged property. That decree was passed on April 10, 1924.2. An appeal was filed to this Court from that decree and was heard on August 21, 1925, In the meantime, the defendant not having paid the decretal amount, the plaintiff applied for a decree absolute, and accordingly a decree was passed for the sale of the ...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector Vs. the Manager, Kurla Estate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR67
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. In reference No. 118 of 1921, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act I of 1894, the Assistant Judge of Than a had before him the question whether the award of the Collector with regard to the land to be acquired was sufficient. The land is situated on the west side of the new Agra Road, and was notified for acquisition partly in July 1920 and partly in December 1920.2. The Collector awarded various rates for various portions of the land from Rs. 2-8 a square yard to Rs. 1-8 a square yard, but the total award for the claimant's land under reference amounted to over Rs. 10,000 an acre for the whole of land which measured three acres three gunthas.3. A reference to the plan shows that the land we are now dealing with was of an exceptionally irregular shape, and one of the fallacies in the claimant's argument which, we may add contained more than the usual number of fallacies which we have to deal with in cases under the Land Acquisition Act, was that all the l...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Abdul Rehman and Haji Mahomed Kadwani Vs. Munjibhai Khatao and Co ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1077
Mirza, J.1. The plaintiffs declared the plaint on April 27, 1923. By their plaint they claimed an injunction against the defendants to restrain them in perpetuity from building on an adjoining plot of land so as to obstruct certain rights of easements which, they alleged, they possessed against that land in virtue of their ownership of the adjoining land.2. By their letter of April 27, 1923, the defendants intimated to the plaintiffs that they were the lessees of the land on which they had filled in the foundations of their proposed building and that the land belonged to the Secrebary of State for India who was tbeir lessor.3. The period for acquiring a right of easement, against the Secretary of State for India is sixty years. The plaintiffs replied to the defendants' letter by their letter of the same date intimating that they had filed the suit against the defendants to restrain them from building and that they would apply for an interim injunction against the defendants, The plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Abdul Rahman Haji Mahomed Kadwani Vs. Munjibhai Khatao and Compan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1925
Reported in: 97Ind.Cas.763
Mirza, J.1. The plaintiffs declared the plaint on April 27, 1923. By their plaint they claimed an injunction against the defendants to restrain them in perpetuity from building on an aljoining plot of land so as to obstruct certain rights of easements which, they alleged, they possessed against that land in virtue of their ownership of the adjoining land.2. By thair letter of April 27, 1923, the defendants intimated to the plaintiffs that they were the lessees of the land on which they had filled in the foundations of their proposed bail ling and that the land belonged to the secretary of State for India who was their lessor.3. The period for acquiring a right of easement against the Secretary of State for India is sixty years. The plaintiffs replied to the defendants' letter, by their letter of the same date intimating that they had filed the suit against the defendants to restrain them from building and that they would apply for an interim injunction against the defendants. The plain...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Abdul Rehman Haji Mahomed Kadwani Vs. Manjibhai Khatao and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom523
Mirza, J.1. The plaintiff's declared the plaint on April 27, 1923. By their plaint they claimed an injunction against the defendants to restrain them in perpetuity from building on an adjoining, plot of land so as to obstruct certain' rights of easements which, they allege, they - possessed against that land in virtue of their ownership of the adjoining land. By their letter of April 27, 1923, the defendants intimated to the plaintiffs that they were the lessee of the land on which they had filled in the foundations of their proposed building and that their land belonged to the Secretary of State for India who was their lessor.2. The period for acquiring a right of easement against the Secretary of State for India is sixty years. The plaintiffs replied to the defendants' letter by their letter of the same date intimating that they had filed the suit against the defendants to restrain them from building and that they would apply for an interim injunction against the defendants. The plai...
Tag this Judgment!Lambodar Dhonddeo Deo Vs. Dharanidhar Ganesh Deo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR64
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. In Appeal No. 71 of 1886 from original decree, the High Court framed a scheme for the management of the Chinchwad Sausthan including the Devasthans of Morgaum, Sidhatek and Theur. Under Clause 2 of that scheme, one of the trustees referred to in Clause 1 was to be selected from among the dessendants of Shri Narayan Maharaj, the eldest son of Shri Cintaman Dev, to represent the eldest branch of the family; one was to be selected from among the descendants of Shri Chintaman Dev generally, and the third was to be selected entirely according to the discretion of the District Judge of Poona. The District Judge was to nominate the trustees after ascertaining from the members of the family, or in such other manner as he might deem desirable, who were eligible to act as such trustees, and what were their respective qualifications.2. We are concerned in this case with the selection or nomination by the District Judge of Poona of a trustee from amongst the descendents...
Tag this Judgment!Kondi Ramji Bhosle Vs. Vithalrao Laxmanrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR424; 94Ind.Cas.662
Norman Maeleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff as an Inamdar brought a suit No. S6 of 1918 in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Wai for possession against the defendant on the ground that he was a yearly tenant and was liable to be evicted on being given a proper notice. The final decision of the High Court in that case was to the effect that defendant was a permanent tenant under Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and the point as to enhancement of rent was then left untouched as it was not originally claimed in the plaint.2. The plaintiff has now brought this suit for enhancement of the rent at the rate of Rs. 125 a year together with Rs. 22 as unpaid rent for two years before suit. It was urged that the notice by the plaintiff to the defendant to enhance the rent was not according to law, but the Judge held that the notice was legal and proper. He also found that having regard to the usage and custom prevailing in the locality the plaintiff was entitled to ask f...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »