Mumbai Court October 1928 Judgments
Bai Jivi Vs. Bai Bibanboo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-31-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR199; 118Ind.Cas.785
Patkar, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs, daughters of Joomabhai who died in the year 1907 leaving a widow Fulbai who died on February 6, 1910, and a son Chhotubhai who died on November 2, 1917. Chhotubhai died leaving defendant No. 1 his widow, two daughters, defendants Nos. 4 and 5, and a son Rasulbhai who died after Chhotubhai in the year 1917, leaving a son Huesein who died on June 20, 1924, and two widows, defendants Nos. 2 and 3, The plaintiffs claim 3/5th share in the properties belonging to Joomabhai, The extent of the share is not denied and the plaintiffs' suit is contested principally on the ground of limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' suit holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned District Judge reversed the decree of the lower Court and remanded the suit for disposal on the merits holding that the suit was not barred by limitation.2. It is urged on behalf of the defendants, firstly, that Article 123 of the Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Madhavrao Anandrao Raste Vs. Shri Omkareshvar Ghat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-30-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR192
Patkar, J.1. This is a suit brought by the Shree Omkareshvar Ghat of Kondopant Nana Gadgil, through its Vahivatdars, the plaintiffs, against the defendant, Sardar Madhavrao Anandrao Raste, for an account for the years 1880 to 1923 in respect of the amount due for 2/16th share payable to the plaintiff-institution by the defendant and for the determination of the balance due from the defendant after deducting the amounts of village expenses, and for the recovery of the balance due from the defendant.2. The principal contention on behalf of the defendant in the written statement was that the suit was bad for want of a certificate under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit was barred by Section 92, and Order I, Rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal, the learned Assistant Judge reversed the decree of the lower Court and remanded the suit for decision on the merits, holding that the suit was no...
Tag this Judgment!Shidramappa Revanshidappa Umbarje Vs. Gurushantappa Shankrappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR137
Patkar, J.1. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are father and son who represent one branch of the family. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 represent another branch of the family and defendant No. 3 represents the third branch of the family. The three branches agreed, on June 22, 1918, that they should be separate from November 14, 1917. On August 14, 1918, they referred their dispute for arbitration to the spiritual head the Belur Swami, who was appointed as an arbitrator. In the rajinama they agreed to divide the joint family properties and asked the arbitrator to effect a fair and equitable partition of the properties and to settle the disputes between the parties. On November 6, 1919, certain yadis were prepared and the finding of the lower Court is that the arbitrator divided the properties between the three branches. Nothing was done from November 6, 1919, till September 3, 1923, on which date the arbitrator sent a wire to the parties. None appeared before him. The Swami, there fore, on September 5,...
Tag this Judgment!Shidramappa Revanshidappa Umbarje Vs. Gurushantappa Shankrappa and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-29-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.227
Patkar, J.1. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 are father and son who represent one branch of the family. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 represent another branch of the family and defendant No. 3 represents the third branch of the family. The three branches agreed, on June 22, 1918, that they should be separate from November 14, 1917. On August 14, 1918, they referred their dispute for arbitration to the spiritual head the Belur Swami, who was appointed as an arbitrator. In the rajinama they agreed to divide the joint family properties and asked the arbitrator to effect a fair and equitable partition of the properties and to settle the disputes between the parties. On November 6, 1919, certain yadis were prepared and the finding of the lower Court is that the arbitrator divided the properties between the three branches. Nothing was done from November 6, 1919, till September 3, 1923, on which date the arbitrator sent a wire to the parties None appeared before him. The Swami, therefore, on September 5, p...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam HusseIn Ahmed Somaji Vs. Land Acquisition Officer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR241
Carson, J.1. This appeal relates to two references under the Land Acquisition Act as to the compensation which the Bombay Government should pay to the appellants for certain lands situated in the Island of Salsette near Bombay which they had acquired under the said Act. The appeal relates to two plots only. One was of about 15 acres and 6 gunthas in the village of Wadhwan, and the other of about 36 acres and 8 gunthas in the neighbouring village of Malad, Both the plots were in hills and were chiefly valuable for the building stone of good quality which underlies the surface. The third appellant, who is substantially the only appellant, had then started quarrying in some of the hills and had purchased the Wadhwan land in question on November 30, 1919, for 7 1/2 annas a square yard. The Government's declaration under which both plots were acquired was published on February 10, 1921, and it is the market value of the land at that date to which the appellant is entitled. The Salsette Deve...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nurmahomed Rajmahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR84; 117Ind.Cas.329
Mirza, J.1. A complaint was made to the Chief Presidency Magistrate that the three accused had committed offences under Sections 411 and 114, Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and after examining the complainant, directed an inquiry and investigation to be made in the matter by the Bombay Police under Section 202. The police officer concerned made no report, but sent up a charge sheet charging the two accused under Sections 411 and 114, Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate in the meanwhile was proceeding with the case against accused No. 3 and the case of accused Nos. 1 and 2 stood adjourned from time to time. As the trial of accused No. 8 resulted in his conviction and sentence, the case against the accused Nos. 1 and 2 was, on their application, transferred by the Chief Presidency Magistrate to the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Third Court. Endorsements were mad...
Tag this Judgment!GulamhusaIn Lalji Sajan Vs. Clara D'Souza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR988
Rangnekar, J.1. The plaintiff is the holder in due course of a promissory note dated September 1, 1927, executed by the defendant in favour of one Laduok. It appears that there were monetary dealings between Laduck and the defendant, an account in respect of which was made up on September 1, 1927, and a sum of Rs 1784 was found due by the defendant to Laduck. The defendant is the owner of Buick Car No. Bom. Z 6391, and at the time of the first loan to her she agreed to mortgage the said car and execute a regular indenture of mortgage in favour of Laduck to whom she handed over the car also at the same time as security for the loan. At the time the promissory note in suit was executed Laduck handed back the said car to the defendant, to ply the same as his agent till repayment of the amount for which the car had been handed over to him as security. The defendant at that time acknowledged in writing that the car continued to be mortgaged to Laduok and also agreed to execute a formal mort...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: V.R. Kothari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR79; 117Ind.Cas.333
Mirza, J.1. The applicant owns an oil mill situated Article 8, Bhavani Peth, Poona, which prior to these proceedings he used to work continuously during night and day. The opponent whose residence adjoins the mill made a complaint to the City Magistrate, First Class, Poona, under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The City Magistrate made a conditional order requiring the applicant to desist from working the mill between the hours 7 p. m. and 7 a. m. and to appear before him on &, date fixed to move to have the order set aside or modified. The applicant appeared before the Magistrate as required and applied under the provisions of Section 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code to appoint a jury to try whether the conditional order made was reasonable and proper. The Magistrate decided to have a jury of five persons for the purpose and called upon the applicant under the provisions of Section 138 to nominate two out of the five. The applicant nominated two jurors and suggested a...
Tag this Judgment!Tuljaram Harkisondas Vs. Harkisan Jagjivan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR448
Fawcett, J.1. In our interlocutory judgment of June 11, 1928, we directed that Narandas and Chunilal, sons of Khushaldas, be joined as respondents to this appeal at the expense of the plaintiff-appellant. It appears, however, that Chunilal has died long ago and that he has now no male issue. Narandas claims to be the sole heir of his deceased brother Chunilal. In the written statement that he has filed, he further claims to be the owner of the house in suit, as well as of all other property left by Nathabhai, the deceased husband of the original plaintiff Ujarn, and he auks that a decree for possession of the house be passed in his favour in this suit, with mesne profits. In the alternative he submits that this Court should, in any case, allow him joint possession with the plaintiff of the suit house. He states-that he is willing to pay any necessary Court-fees with regard to such relief as may be granted to him.2. The appellant No. 2 has put in a statement in answer to this written st...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bai Aisha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR62
Mirza, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, ordering the applicant to surrender herself on a warrant dated April 20, 1928, issued by the Resident at Baroda, or in the alternative to give bail as required by the warrant to attend before the Second Class Magistrate at Navsari in the Baroda State. The warrant is issued under the provisions of Article 7 of the Indian Extradition Act (XV of 1903). It recites that the applicant Bai Aisha (Mabel Ferris alias Isa Badruddin) wife of Akuji Isabji of Taluka Navsari, stands charged with having committed in the Baroda State the offences of criminal breach of trust and theft, which in British India would be punishable under Sections 406 and 380 of the pndian Penal Code.2. It appears that on July 17, 1927, the Bombay Police had at she instance of the Baroda Police arrested the applicant for the same alleged offence. The proceedings were adjourned from time to time as the extradition warrant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »