Mumbai Court January 1928 Judgments
Rao Narsingh Rao Vs. Beti Mahalakshmi Bai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1331
John Wallis, J.1. This appeal was filed by the plaintiff Narsingh Rao, son of Balwant Singh and grandson of Raja Jaswant Rai, both deceased, against the first defendant, Rani Kishori, since deceased, the widow of Jaswant Rai, the second defendant, her daughter Beti Mahalakshmi Rai, and the third defendant, Musammat Rameshwar Debi, widow of Lal Raghubans Rao, the second defendant's son, to recover the immovable properties which were the subject of a conditional deed of gift executed on September 4, 1875, by Jaswant Rai in favour of the first defendant, his junior wife. The plaintiff claimed that under the deed of gift he was entitled to succeed to these properties on attaining majority and that, even if the provisions of the deed in his favour were inoperative as opposed to the rules of Hindu law, still Rani Kishori took only an estate limited in point of duration which determined when he attained majority, so that he thereupon became entitled to take as heir of the settlor Jaswant Rai....
Tag this Judgment!Basangowda Shivangowda Dharmagowdar Vs. Rudrappa Fakirappa Ganiger
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom291; (1928)30BOMLR591; 110Ind.Cas.633
Patkar, J.1. [The judgment after setting out the facts proceeded :] It is urged on behalf of the plaintiffs, firstly, that the lower appellate Court made out a new case in appeal and reliance was placed on the rulings in Lala Rup Narain v. Gopal Devi I.L.R. (1909) Cal. 780: 11 Bom. L.R. 833 and Shivabasava bin Amingavda v. Sangappa bin Amingavda and, secondly, that the lower appellate Court ought to have held that the adoption of Ishwargowda had been acquiesced in and its validity could not be impugned after a lapse of more than forty years. On behalf of the respondents it was urged that Ishwargowda with reference to his dealings described himself as Ishwargowda Ningangowda, that the adoption by Somawa with regard to watan lands was invalid under the ruling in Bhimabai v. Tayappa Murarrao I.L.R. (1913) Bom. 598: 15 Bom. L.R. 783, that the onus was on the plaintiffs to prove not only the factum but the validity of the adoption and that Somawa could not adopt as she succeeded to the esta...
Tag this Judgment!Subrao Hambirrao Patil Vs. Radha Hambirrao Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom295; (1928)30BOMLR692; 113Ind.Cas.497
Madgavkak, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to the property of a deceased Marafcha by name Hambirrao Nana Patil, who died in 1918, childless, leaving three widows defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 9. The contest is between plaintiff No. 1 appellant Subrao, claiming to be adopted by defendant No. 9 Gunabai and defendant-respondent No. 3 Tukaram, claiming to be adopted by defendant No. 2. The plaintiff No. I is the natural son of the sister of the deceased Hambirrao.2. The five main issues raised in the lower Court were: (1) whether the appellant's mother defendant No. 9 was or was not the senior widow of Hambirrao? (2) Whether she had been guilty of misconduct or was legally disqualified from adopting? (3) Whether Hambirrao had empowered defendant No. 2 to adopt, and, lastly, (4) Whether the adoption of plaintiff No 1 as the son of the sister of the deceased Hambirrao is valid in Jaw? This last issue was divided into two: (a) Whether Hambirrao was a Kshatriya or a Shudra, and (6) if the fin...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Shivbhat Manjunathbhat Hattangadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR392
Fawcett, J.1. The applicant in this case has been convicted under Section 101 of the Indian Railways Act IX of 1890, in that he, when on duty as Station Master, did endanger the safety of persons by disobeying certain general rules under the Act. The particular rules that are specified in the judgments of the two lower Courts are Rules 51, 109 and 112. He was sentenced by the trying Magistrate to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one day and to pay a fine of Rs. 300, in default to suffer three months' rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, this conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Sessions Judge.2. In the application for revision two preliminary points have been taken, as they were in both the lower Courts; and it may be added that the applicant came to this Court even while this trial was pending and raised these two points as being a bar to his trial, but this Court decided that he should take the points at the trial and that it was undesirable and inconvenient that this Court sho...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gopala Murgis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom138; (1928)30BOMLR389
Fawcett, J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate, Poona, under the following circumstances. The Special Magistrate, Poona Cantonment, convicted a man, aged 24, of theft and sentenced him to whipping, namely, twelve stripes in jail. The judgment was delivered at 5 P.M. on October 15, and the accused was sent to the city look-up, as the prison van did not call that day. The next morning the accused was sent to the Yeravda jail, but was not whipped as it was Sunday. The Superintendent, Central Prison, returned the warrant with the accused on Monday on the ground that the sentence of flogging should have been executed on the day of the judgment. The accused has been released on personal recognizance by the Magistrate, who referred the case to the District Magistrate for orders. The Superintendent of the jail is of opinion that it was illegal to keep the prisoner in confinement in order that the sentence of whipping might be carried into effect, and that a sentence of whipping c...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Goverdhan Ridkaran
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom140(1); (1928)30BOMLR387
Fawcett, J.1. In this case we agree with the Sessions Judge that, as the charge framed by the Magistrate is one of bigamy at a place in the Chalisgaon Taluka of the East Khandesh District, and abetment of bigamy by actually assisting at the marriage at that place, the City Magistrate, Ahmednagar, has no jurisdiction to try the accused on those charges. We think that the word 'ordinarily' in Section 177, Criminal Procedure Code, must be taken to mean 'except in the cases provided hereinafter to the contrary'. The decision in Musaammat Bhagwatia v. King-Emperor I.L.R (1924) Pat. 417, is on this very point and is one with which we agree. No doubt as shown by ill. (a) to Section 180, Criminal Procedure Code, a charge of abetment of bigamy might be inquired into by the City Magistrate, if the abetment was committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction. But there does not appear to be clear evidence of the commission of such abetment at present on the record, and no charge has been fr...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Shivram Pardeshi Vs. Maruti Niloba Khamkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR688
Patkar, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 1,100 from the defendant due on accounts from 1915 to 1921. The plaintiff's contention was that the defendant was an agriculturist. The defendant, however, denied that he was an agriculturist. An issue was raised in the first Court, 'Does the plaintiff prove that the defendant is an agriculturist'? The learned Subordinate Judge held that he was not an agriculturist. On appeal, the learned Assistant Judge held that the defendant must be considered to be an agriculturist, maintaining himself by agricultural income. The first item in the accounts, according to the learned Assistant Judge, is on November 5, 1918, and if the defendant is an agriculturist, the claim would be within time under Section 72 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, if it was proved that the defendant was an agriculturist at the time when the cause of action arose. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the finding that the defendant was a...
Tag this Judgment!Venkat Subba Shrinivas Hegde Vs. Subba Rama Hedge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR827
Shaw, J.1. The circumstances of this case need not be referred to further than as follows: The object of the suit was to set aside a certain deed executed by the deceased plaintiff on June 26, 1919. By that deed certain property was transferred to the appellant. The deed was attacked as having been granted and delivered while the grantor was in ill-health and under undue influence; elements of fraud were also introduced. It may be said at once that the whole of these allegations were tested before the Subordinate Judge and, on appeal from the Subordinate Judge, by the District Court, and all the allegations were disproved. Therefore that element of attack disappears from the case.2. There remains, however, this further point which until a few years ago was one of much contention in India. The point is, that the deed, which was a deed of gift of immoveable property, was granted and delivered upon a certain day, but was not registered until certain event happened. Those events included t...
Tag this Judgment!Pestonji Manekji Mody Vs. Bai Meherbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom539; (1928)30BOMLR1407
Crump, J.1. This is a somewhat unfortunate suit. It arises out of family dissensions which might have been better composed outside a Court of law. But unfortunately the parties have found themselves unable to come to any terms, and the differences between them must, therefore, be decided according to their strict legal rights.2. The introductory facts necessary to understand the points that arise are as follows. One Dr. Edalji Mody was engaged in the business of preparing certain chemicals useful in the mills, and that business was at one time a very flourishing one. Defendant No. 1 is his widow, and the plaintiff is his brother. It appears that from a very early age the plaintiff lived with his deceased brother and defendant No. 3, and as it has been expressed by both sides, was regarded by them in the light of a son. He took an active part in the business from a very early age, and in the year 1913, he was admitted into partnership, his share being one anna. There is an agreement of ...
Tag this Judgment!Mariambi Vs. Fatmabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR135
Crump, J.1. The position, so far as concerns the Advocate General, is peculiar. When the matter was argued his counsel contended that the bequest was good and in this plaintiff supported him. For this reason I reserved judgment though I was of a contrary opinion. Subsequently the Advocate General himself appeared and stated that- he did not think the bequest could be supported. I propose now to give shortly my reasons for the view which I take....2. In Runchordas Vandrawandas v. Parvatibhai their Lordships of the Privy Council have adopted as appropriate to India the test laid down by Lord Eldon in Moriee v. The Bishop of Durham (1805) 10 V V 539. and as regards the case before them they say (p. 81):-The objects which can be considered to be meant by that word ate too vague and uncertain for the administration of them to be under any control.3. The word there considered was 'Dharam' which is another form of the word 'Dharma' used in the will before me. The meaning of that word is state...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »