Mumbai Court July 1926 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Savitribai Ganesh Khadilkar Vs. Bhaubhat Sakharambhat Khadilkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR64
Shah, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover certain properties as the heir of her husband, to whom the properties belonged. Her husband died in 1914 ; and she alleged that thereafter the first three defendants, who were the Bhaubhands of her husband, got the tenants over to their side and took possession of the lands. In the course of the suit, as the learned trial Judge thought that she was mentally infirm, he appointed her brother as her next friend for the suit.2. The defence of the first three defendants was that she was congenitally deaf and dumb, and that she was disqualified from inheriting the property as an heir according to Hindu law. That is the only defence with which we are concerned now. The other defendants Nos.' 4-7 made common causa with the first three defendants, though in their own right they wore not entitled to the property.3. The first issue raised by the trial Court was : 'Is plaintiff born totally deaf and dumb or is she only partially deaf and dumb ?...
Usmanbhai Samadbhai Vs. Bai Sakina
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom176; (1927)29BOMLR106
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. The only point raised in this appeal is that the wife did not observe her period of iddat as required by Mahomedan law, and that, therefore, there is no valid divorce. This is founded on the suggestion that Mahomedan law requires the wife to observe her iddat entirely in the house of her husband. For that proposition a passage was cited from a work on Mussalman Law by Abdur Rahman at p. 180.2. But, on looking at the authorities to which the author refers, and in particular to Hamilton's Hedaya at pp. 133 and 134, it is perfectly clear that the proposition of law contended for by the appellant is entirely erroneous. On the contrary, it is stated at page 133 :-It is incumbent upon a woman under Edit that she observe and accomplish the same in the place where she was resident at the period of divorce taking place...whether that be her own accustomed dwelling, or a house where she may be upon a visit (that of her parents, for instance), because this is so ordered in...
Digambar Tatya Utpat Vs. Hari Damodar Utpat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom143; (1927)29BOMLR102
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. This case essentially depends on its own particular facts. The point is whether on those facts a certain interest in connection with the offerings at the temple of the Goddess Rukhmini at Pandharpur can be validly mortgaged and sold in execution to a member of the class of Utpats, the owners of the Vritti of officiating as priests in this temple.2. The first question is the true construction of the mortgage of January 4, 1888 (Exhibit 28). I will not quote the mortgage in detail, but our construction of it is that it mortgages the share amounting to l/288ths of the mortgagor in the net proceeds of the offerings made by devotees to the Goddess after providing for all the customary expenses of the temple payable out of the funds thus arrived at. We do not think that it gives the mortgagee the right himself to worship the Goddess and to take himself the offerings placed at the foot of the idol. All that the mortgagor is entitled to is this small aliquot share.3. Th...
Chhaganlal Sakarlal Vani Vs. Jayaram Deoraj Thakar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom131; (1927)29BOMLR107
Shah, J.1. This appeal arises out of execution proceedings. It has given rise to somewhat prolonged arguments. Having regard to the points which have been raised in support of the appeal, it is desirable that I should state the facts which have given rise to this appeal. It appears that one Dagdu died, leaving a minor son Rangnath, two widows Santubai and Kashibai, his grandfather Govind, and an uncle, Yeshvant. It appears that in 1896, Santubai passed a simple mortgage on behalf of her minor step-son Rangnath in favour of Jairam, plaintiff No. 1. Apparently Rangnath's natural mother, Kashibai, was not alive then ; and we do not know exactly when Dagdu died. Anyhow when the mortgagees filed a suit on this mortgage in 1911, they joined Santubai, Govind Balaji, the paternal grandfather of Rangnath, and Yeshvant, the uncle of Rangnath, as defendants. Rangnath had died before the suit. It was stated in the plaint as follows:-The debtor Rangnath, a minor, is dead, and defendant No. 1 has pa...
Savitribai Ganesh Khadilkar Vs. Bhaubhat Sakharambhat Khadilkar and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom103
Shah, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover certain, properties as the heir of her husband, to whom the properties belonged. Her husband died in 1914; and she alleged that thereafter the first three defendants, who were the Bhaubhands of her husband, got the tenants over to their side and took possession of the lands. In the course of the suit, as the learned trial Judge thought that she was mentally infirm, he appointed her brother as her next friend for the suit.2. The defence of the first three defendants was that she was congenitally deaf and dumb, and that she was disqualified from inheriting the property as an heir according to Hindu Law. That is the only defence with which we are concerned now. The other defendants, Nos. 4-7 made common cause with the first these defendants, though in their own right they were not entitled to the property.3. The first issue raised by the trial Court was: 'Is plaintiff born totally deaf and dumb or is she only partially deaf and dumb?' ...
Emperor Vs. Nanubhai Haji Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1070; 97Ind.Cas.811
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal, by the Government of Bombay, against an order of acquittal by the Second Class Magistrate of Ahmedabad. The accused was charged under Section 151, Sub-section (4), of the Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. Act III of 1901). The charge in substance against him was that he conducted his timber shop without a license. The accused was asked his explanation about this charge, and his explanation was that the license had not been received even though monies had been paid, that he had a license during the previous year, and that no reply was given to his application.2. The complainant was examined, and he stated as to how the license, which the accused had for the previous year, had terminated on April 1, 1925, and how his application for a license, dated July 14, 1925, was rejected on July 25. It is not necessary to examine further the effort of the accused to get a license for the purposes of this case. The fact remains that on the date of the complaint he had...
Emperor Vs. Khodabux
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1066
Shah, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant in this case, and, after a consideration of the points urged in support of the application, we have come to the conclusion that no case for interference in revision is made out2. As regards the first point about jurisdiction, it is quite clear that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the case. As explained by him in his report, there is the further fact that he had given directions for bringing up such cases to his Court, in view of the congestion in the Maza-gaon and Girgaon Police Courts, under Rule 3 of the Rules made under Section 21, Criminal Procedure Code. Apart from that fact, there can be no doubt that, under Section 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he had jurisdiction to try the case.3. As regards the merits, in the absence of any record of the evidence, it is very difficult in revision to determine what the evidence was. Taking the evidence as stated by the learned Magistrate in h...
Bhavan Lallu Vs. Umar Mahomed Bhaiji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom129; (1927)29BOMLR97
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. The plaintiff here sues for possession under a rent-note. The defence is that the rent-note is only a part of other documents forming one transaction, and that if all the documents are looked at, it will be found that the transaction was an illegal one inasmuch as it amounted to an alienation of an unrecognised sub-division of a bhag contrary to the express provisions of Section 3 of Bombay Act V of 1862. The plaintiff retorts that the defendants being tenants under the rent-note are estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, issue No. 1 was raised on that point, viz., 'Whether it is open to the defendants to raise the plea about the void nature of the transaction and about its having been passed for interest without first surrendering possession to the plaintiff.'2. In the trial Court the learned Subordinate Judge decided that issue in the negative. Consequently, the evidence which the defendants wanted to adduce in support of the remai...
Khodabux Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom564; 97Ind.Cas.973
Shah, J.1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicant in this case, and, after a consideration of the points urged in support of the application, we have come to the conclusion that no case-for interference in revision is made out.2. As regards the first point about jurisdiction, it is quite clear that the learned Chief, Presidency Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the ease. As explained by him in his report, there is the further fact that he had given directions for bringing up such cases to his Court, in view of the congestion in the Mazagaon and Girgaon Police Courts, under Rule 3 of the rules made under Section 21, Criminal P.C. Apart from that fact, there can be no doubt that, under Section 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he had jurisdiction to try the case.3. As regards the merits, in the absence of any record of the evidence, it is very difficult in revision to determine what the evidence was. Taking the evidence as stated by the learned Magistrate in his judgmen...
Krishnabai Pandurang Salagare Vs. Savlaram Gangaram Kumtekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom98; (1927)29BOMLR60
Shah, J.1. The few facts which have given rise to this appeal are these. The plaintiff and the defendant Pandurang Balaji Salagare were neighbours. The plaintiff sued the defendant claiming various reliefs in connection with certain acts of the defendant which were in the nature of encroachments upon his properties. Out of the seven reliefs claimed three reliefs D, E and G were granted on February 25, 1918, and injunctions as prayed for in those clauses were issued against the defendant. After the decree the defendant was said to have made certain encroachments in respect of which the present darkhast was filed in 1923. Before the darkhast was filed the defendant had died; and the darkhast proceeded against the two widows of the deceased judgment-debtor in respect of certain encroachments. The Court dealing with the darkhast disposed of two out of these matters with which we are not concerned. Those two matters related to the removal of the plaster and the encroachment of the defendant...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »