Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR891
Tomlin, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dated November 26, 1925, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad reversing in part a decree dated May 19, 1922, of the Subordinate Judge of Banda.2. The plaintiff is under Hindu law the heiress of her father, Uttam Ram, who died on October 30, 1875, without having had a eon. tier right to possession of her father's estate did not accrue until February, 1914, on the death of her father's widow, Deo Koer (hereinafter called the mother). The mother was entitled to the estate while living.3. At the death of Uttam Ram there were also living his mother, Jarao Bai (hereinafter called the grandmother), and his deceased brother's widow, Man Koer (hereinafter called the aunt).4. The estate of Uttam Ram included (inter alia) several villages, an 8-anna share in the village of Pachnehi, and a house at War-nagar in Baroda.5. The other 8-anna share in the village of Pachnehi was owned by Durga Prasad, who was a debtor to the estate of Uttam Earn.6. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR834
Carson, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree made on February 24, 1926, by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, varying an award dated July 28, 1924, by the Assistant Judge at Thana on a reference made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land in question is part of the village of Kanjur, and the area in dispute in this appeal is stated to be about 26 3/4 acres. Some of the lands were in the possession of sutidars who had rights of permanent occupancy in their rice fields. The first question which was argued before this Board on the present appeal was the claim of the appellants that certain buildings which had been erected by the Government on the land at the date of the Government's declaration of November 4, 1920, under the sixth section of the Land Acquisition Act had become and were the appellant's property, and that he should be allowed the value of the land in the state in which it then was; that is to say, with the buildings on it. The way that question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR879
George Lowndes, J.1. The appellants are the representatives of Izatunnissa Begam, the widow of one Azhar Husain, a Shia Mohammedan, who died in 1916. His sole heir according to the Shia law was his sister Ahmadi Begam, Izatunnissa Begam was entitled on her husband's death to a dower of Rs. 40,000 and one gold mohar of the value of Rs. 15. Azhar Husain in his life time had executed certain deeds by which he purported in effect to denude himself of his immovable properties which were of considerable value. Shortly after his death Izatunnissa Begam took proceedings in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Fatna to enforce her dower claim. She impleadod in her suit as the principal defendants, Ahmadi Begam and the other persons interested in A zhar Huaain's alienations and as perform defendants certain other creditors of the deceased. She claimed by her plaint that these alienations were invalid, and that she was entitled to recover her dower debt from the properties. She prayed for a decree fo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR800
Patkar, J.1. In this case the complainant, a cadastral surveyor, received an application from the District Inspector of Land Records for measuring and demarcating the boundaries of survey No. 111 on April 1, 1927. On May 4, while he was measuring the land and fixing the boundaries the accused snatched the crowbar from the hands of one Ishwara Mahar who was digging a hole for fixing a stone at the place fixed by the complainant after the measurements were taken. The complainant made a Panchnama, Ex. 2C, and a report, and in consequence of the report a complaint was filed against the accused under Section 186, Indian Penal Code. The accused was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate, Barsi, and on appeal the District Magistrate has confirmed the conviction.2. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the complainant was not discharging public functions, and, therefore, the accused is not guilty under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 119, Clause 2, of the Land Reven...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 122Ind.Cas.418
1. In this case the complainant, a cadastral surveyor, received an application from the District Inspector of Land Records for measuring and demarcating the boundaries of Survey No 111 on April 1, 1927. On May 4, while he was measuring the land and fixing the boundaries the accused snatched the crowbar from the hands of one Ishwara Mahar who was digging a hole for fixing a stone at the place fixed by the complainant after the measurements were taken. The complainant made a panchnama Ex. 2-0, and a report and in consequence of the report a complaint was filed against the accused under Section 186, Indian Penal Code, The accused was convicted by the Second Class Magistrate, Barsi, and on appeal the District Magistrate has confirmed the conviction.2. It is urged on behalf of the applicant that the complainant was not discharging public functions, and, therefore, the accused is not guilty under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code. Under Section 119, Clause (2) of the Land Revenue Code, wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1930)32BOMLR212
Mirza, J.1. Mr. Bhagvati on behalf of the plaintiffs has raised an issue (No. 8) whether the counter-claim as framed is maintainable. The objection to the counter-claim is with regard to its title. The title of the counter-claim is :-Messrs. Kasturbhai Jagabhai, a firm carrying on business at Shaikh Memon Street without the Fort of Bombay. Plaintiffs.v.Messrs. Samarthrai Khetssydas, a firm carrying on business at Sheikh Memon Street without the Fort of: Bombay. Defendants.2. The written statement is headed :The written statement and counter-claim of Jagabhai Lallubhai the sole proprietor of the defendants' firm abovenamed.4. Order XXX of the Civil Procedure Code enables suits to be brought by or against firms and persons carrying on business in names other than their own. The firm name is treated as a compendious description of the several partners it comprises. For a suit in the name of a firm to be maintained it must satisfy the provisions of Order XXX, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1930Bom331; (1930)32BOMLR207
Mirza, J.1. The plaintiff' prays for a declaration that the defendant is liable to pay to him such moneys as the plaintiff is liable to pay under or in respect of a decree referred to in the plaint, and certain costs incurred by the plaintiff. The plaintiff further prays that the defendant may be decreed to pay to him the moneys mentioned in the previous prayer, the costs of the suit and interest on judgment.2. Two preliminary objections have been raised to the suit as framed. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the plaint discloses no cause of action and that the suit is not maintainable.3. Prayer (a) of the plaint asks for a declaratory decree. For a declaratory decree to be maintained it must fall within the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Belief Act. That section provides that any person entitled to any legal character, or to any right as to any property, may institute a suit against any person denying, or interested to deny, his title to such character or righ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR795
Patkar, J.1. In this case the complainant filed a complaint on April 11, 1927, against the accused under Section 102 of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act alleging that the accused being an undischarged insolvent had obtained credit from the complainant, Summons was issued but was not served, and on April 28, 1927, the complainant was absent in Court. The accused was also not present. Under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. On April 29, the complainant appeared before the Court and requested the Court to set aside the order on the ground that he was unable to be present in Court on April 28, The application of the complainant was rejected. On May 2, 1928, after nearly a year after the order of acquittal, the complainant filed a fresh complaint before another Magistrate. The learned Magistrate held that the accused having been acquitted under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a fresh trial of the accused was barred under ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1930)32BOMLR794
Mirza, J. 1. This is an application for revision of a conviction and sentence of the applicants by the First Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Broach, for an offence in the case of applicants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Section 4 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and in the case of applicants Nos. 4 and 5 for an offence under Section 5 of the same Act. The District Magistrate, Broach, has made a reference to this Court recommending that the sentences of applicants Nos. 1 and 2 may be enhanced. The application and the reference have been heard together. The applicants were found in a house when the complainant the Home Inspector of Police entered it under a warrant issued to him by the District Superintendent of Police under the provisions of Section 6 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. On making a search of the house the Inspector found certain papers and account books which were of the nature of instruments of gambling. The accused were arrested by the Inspector under the warra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR1144
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision by the complainant, Mr. Sharndasani, against the order of the Acting Chief Presidency Magistrate of October 12, 1927, dismissing his complaint against the six respondents, for an alleged offence under Section 282 of the Indian Companies Act. That section provides that 'whoever in any...balance-sheet or other document required by or for the purposes of...the provisions of this Act wilfully makes a statement false, in any material particular, knowing it to be false,' shall be punishable in a particular way.2. Now, this application to us, it is important to observe, is in revision, and not in appeal. Indeed, if this was an appealable case, there would be no right at all for the complainant to be heard. The right of appeal would be in the Crown, Then, as regards revision, although we have wide powers under Sections 435 and 439, Criminal Procedure Code, under which the present application is made to us, yet Section 440 provides...
Tag this Judgment!