Mumbai Court January 1929 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.
Emperor Vs. C.E. Ring
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR545
Mirza, J.1. The appellants-accused and the original accused No. 8 were tried jointly before the Sessions Court at Belgaum, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 8 on charges under Sections 120 B, 161 Indian Penal Code, and accused Nos. 4 to 10 on charges under Section 120B, 161 Indian Penal Code. The jury unanimously found accused Nos. 1 and 2 guilty on all charges, and accused No. 3 guilty on charges under Rs. 120B and 161 . The jury by a majority of three to two found accused No. 3 guilty under Section 163, Indian Penal Code, and accused Nos. 4 to 7 and 9 and 10 guilty on all charges; the jury found accused No. 8 by a majority of four to one not guilty of any offence. The Sessions Judge accepted the verdict of the jury, acquitted accused No. 8, and sentenced the remaining accused to various terms of imprisonment and fines.2. The appellants have urged that the trial was vitiated owing to (1) a misjoinder of charges and parties accused; (2) certain misdirections and non-directions amounting to misdire...
Malhari Vaman Kramavant Vs. Vinayak Ravji Kramavant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR640
Baker, J.1. The plaintiffs sued the defendants from partition and possession of their one-fifth share in the lands in suit at Nagaon and Davale. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the descendants (sons) of three out of the five sons of Hari. In the first Court defendants Nos. 5 and 6 supported plaintiffs' claim which was contested by defendants Nos. 1 to 4 almost entirely on the ground that the plaintiffs' title was barred by time inasmuch as neither they nor their father had ever had possession of the land in suit. It was also contended that there was other joint family property which should be brought in suit. The first Court awarded plaintiffs' claim, and on appeal its finding was confirmed by the Joint Judge of Thana. The defendants Nos. 1 to 4 make this second appeal. The only points taken in the appeal are, first that the suit is barred by res judicata under Section 11, Sub-section 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and, secondly, that it is barred by adverse possession or by l...
Mathurbhai Garbadbhai Patel Vs. the Nadian City Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR473; 118Ind.Cas.798
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. When this Second Appeal No. 974 of 1928 came before me for admission, I held that the suit was barred under Section 206 of the Bombay City Municipal Act 1925, as had been held in both the Courts below. I thought that the present suit was in respect of something done or purporting to have been done under the existing Act, and that it could not be said that the suit was founded on something that took place prior to the 1925 Act. I also thought that certain arguments raised on the wording of the section did not avail the applicant, particularly having regard to the decision of the Privy Council in Bhagchand v. Secretary of State : (1927)29BOMLR1227 reversing what had hitherto been the Bombay view that suits for an injunction were not within Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Following on my decision Mr. Shah applied for leave to appeal and I asked him to put his grounds in writing. A formal application was accordingly put in, but before it came on for h...
Vatsalabai Vinayak Nimkar Vs. Vasudev Vishnu Musale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR666; 136Ind.Cas.177
Baker, J.1. This case involves a point of Hindu law. The facts are simple, and are set out in the judgments of the Courts below. The plaintiffs, who are the granddaughters of one Parvatibai, sued to recover possession of the plaint property, their case being that the property is the stridhan property of Parvati, that Parvati's daughter Dwarkabai died during the lifetime of Parvati leaving no male isaue, and plaintiffs as her daughters are Parvatibai'a heirs, The defendants who are respectively the brother of the husband of Parvati, and his son, contend that on the death of the widow, they as reveraioners of the husband of Parvati, are entitled to the property. It is admitted that if the property is the stridhan property of Parvati, her granddaughters, the present plaintiffs, are the heirs, whereas if it was property of her husband, the defendants are the heirs. It seems that the husband of Parvati, and his brother, defendant No. 1, were separate, and after the death of Pandurang, the h...
Vatsalabaivinayak Nimkar and anr. Vs. Vasudev Vishnu Musale and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1929
Reported in: 122Ind.Cas.49
Baker, J.1. This case involves a point of Hindu Law. The facts are simple and are set out in the judgments of the Courts below. The plaintiffs, who are the grand-daughters of one Parvatibai, sued to recover possession of the plaint property, their case being that the property is the stridhan property of Parvati, that Parvati's daughter Dwarkabai died during the life-time of Parvati leaving no male issue and plaintiffs as her daughters are Par-vatibai's heirs. The defendants who are respectively the brother of the husband of Parvati, and his son, contend that on the death of the widow, they as reversioners of the husband of Parvati, are entitled to the property. It is admitted that if the property is the stridhan property of Parvati, her grand-daughters, the present plaintiffs' are the heirs, whereas if it was property of her husband, the defendants are the heirs. It seems that the husband of Parvati, and his brother, defendant No. 1, were separate, and after the death of Pandurang the ...
B.B. and C.i. Railway Vs. Ganu Daji Mirmahamad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1087; 122Ind.Cas.852
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the defendants, the B.B. & 0. I. Railway, apply in revision from the order of the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad awarding a sum of Rs. 866-4-0 and costs against them in respect of a consignment of mangoes which were booked from Timarni station on the G.I.P. Railway to Ahmedabad station on the B.B. & C.I. Railway.2. The claim against the first defendants, the G.I.P. Railway, was dismissed by the learned Judge, and on the last hearing on December 14, we directed that the present appeal by the B.B. & C.I. Railway should also be dismissed as against the G.I.P. Railway. But at that date the appellants had not served the plaintiff, and consequently the case had to stand over.3. It is clear here that the contract with the railway company was to take these mangoes from Timarni in Madras to Ahmed, a bad station in Gujarat. What the railway company in fact did was that they took the goods from Timarni to Ahmedabad, but that then ...
Emperor Vs. Yellappa Durgaji Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR523
Mirza, J.1. These two applications have been heard together, and raise substantially the same points. Both applicants have been committed by the Special Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, to take their trial before the Sessions Court, Belgaum, the first applicant on charges under Sections 120-B, 161 or 213 of the Indian Penal Code, and the second applicant under Sections 120-B, 161 or 213 and 114 and 219 of the Indian Penal Code. The applications are made under the provisions of Section 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to have the committal quashed on the ground of certain illegalities that are alleged. The grounds relied upon seem mainly to be the following;-(1) that there is a misjoinder of the accused persons, as well aa a misjoinder of charges;(2) that in the alternative if it is held that there is no misjoinder of the accused, or of charges, the joint trial of the applicants, along with their co-accused in the committal order would seriously prejudice their trial and lead to a...
Lallubhai Pragji Vs. Bhimbhai Dajibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR632
Baker, J.1. These are applications for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the decision of this Court in Second Appeals Nos. 864 and 914 of 1926. The appeals arose out of two cross suits in respect of an easement, i.e., the right to open two windows and an arch in the western party-wall of the defendants' house. The first question which will arise in this case is whether the property is Rs. 10,000 or upwards in value. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that in a suit for an easement of light and air claimed by the owner of property A, against property B, it is the value of the property and not the value of the easement that determines the appealable value, and for that proposition he relies on the case of Appaya v. Lakham-gowda (1922) 25 Bom. L.R. 77 . Now the trend of decisions in this Court has always been the other way. In De Silva v. De Silva (1904) 6 Bom. L.R. 403 the point was directly in issue, and it was held, to determine the value prescribed by Section ...
Anant Dattatraya Thakur-desai Vs. Mahadev Wasudeo Thakur-desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR628
Mirza, J.1. The appellants claimed to be in possession of an undivided half share in a Khoti takshim in their right of purchase of the equity of redemption relating to that property from one Narmadabai, a Hindu widow, in 1911, and later from one Parvatibai an heir under the Hindu law of one Balkrishna, and in their right of having redeemed the property from the mortgagee. Both Courts have held that the property had become the property of one Gangabai by adverse possession and later of her daughter-in-law Narmadabai both by inheritance and by adverse possession; that the sale from Narmadabai was not justified on the ground of any legal necessity and was not binding upon her reversioners. Both Courts have also held that when Parvatibai sold the equity of redemption her right to it had long since been barred by limitation, and the equity of redemption had vested in Gangabai and Narmadabai by adverse possession. Hence they decreed the respondents' (original plaintiffs') claim to redeem the...
Bapu Shivaji Naik Vs. Kashiram Hanmantrao Ghag
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR658
Baker, J.1. [After setting out the facts of the case, his Lordship proceeded :] The position is that the plaintiff having been awarded possession by this Court of the one anna share which he purchased from the defendants as representatives of the branch of Shivajee, and having discovered that the actual chare owned by these defendants out of the one anna is only three pies although he succeeded in establishing his title to sis pies out of that, now seeks to recover either the remaining one half, i.e,, six pies of this takehim, or damages in default. The first Court has held that actual possession cannot be given, as it is with other persons who have successfully asserted it against the defendants and the plaintiff, and there is no appeal on that point. We are, therefore, only concerned whether the present suit for damages will lie, and, if by to what amount of damages is the plaintiff entitled. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that no such suit as that brought by the pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »