Mumbai Court November 1933 Judgments
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Debendra Lal Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR249
MacMillan, J.1. The only question which has been argued before their Lordships in these consolidated appeals is whether the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta have rightly decided that Debendra Lal Khan, the plaintiff in the suit, 'has right by adverse possession to the fishery' in a portion of the river Cossye. The Secretary of State for India in Council (hereinafter referred to as 'the Crown'), who is the defendant in the suit, contests in his appeal the soundness of this decision. Debendra Lal Khan (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff'), besides supporting the decision of the High Court in his favour, raises in his appeal certain other issues which have been decided against him. His counsel, however, intimated that in the event of the decision of the High Court with regard to the fishery in question being upheld by their Lordships, the plaintiff did not propose to proceed with his appeal.2. The river Cossye, also known as the Kangsabati, rises in the hills of Chota Nagpur, a...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanbai Burjorji Cooper Vs. Bablibai Shapurji Sorabji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom168; (1934)36BOMLR272; 152Ind.Cas.264
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Rangnekar by which he refused to the appellant, who is defendant No. 7, her claim to take the evidence of witnesses in Goa on commission. The suit is a testamentary suit in which the plaintiffs are setting up a will as executors. The respondents contest the will. The present appellant is a relative, and her claim is that she will be interested in the estate if the will is set aside. She desired to produce the evidence of witnesses who are in Goa. She, therefore, took out a summons asking for an order that the witnesses might be examined on commission, and that summons was dismissed by Mr. Justice Rangnekar. We arranged to hear as a preliminary issue the question whether an appeal lies from an order refusing a commission. That question turns on the meaning of the word 'judgment' in Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, a question which has been discussed a great many times in this Court. The rule which this Court act...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Hasam Ajam Bhakara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom185; (1934)36BOMLR221
Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision in which we are asked to interfere with the order made by the Sessions Judge of Surat, directing a re-trial of the accused for an offence under Section 193 read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code.2. The material facts are that a prosecution was proceeding under Sections 147, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code, before the Second Class Magistrate of Chorasi, and on April 9, 1931, the present applicant is alleged to have attempted to fabricate evidence in respect of that prosecution. Subsequently that prosecution was transferred from the Second Class Magistrate to the First Class Magistrate of Surat, Rao Saheb Patel, who tried the case and convicted the accused. Proceedings were then started by the police against the present applicant in respect of his attempt to fabricate evidence. The original complaint was under Sections 201, 186 and 116 of the Indian Penal Code, but a charge was ultimately framed under Section 193, Indian Penal Cod...
Tag this Judgment!Hasam Ajam Bhakara Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1933
Reported in: 148Ind.Cas.1011
1. This is an application in revision in which we are asked to interfere with the order made by the Sessions Judge of Surat directing a retrial of the accused for an offence under Section 193 read with Section 511, Indian Penal Code.2. The material facts are that a prosecution was proceeding under Sections 147, 501 and 503, Indian Penal Code, before the Second Class Magistrate of Chorasi and on April 9, 1931, the present applicant is alleged to have attempted to fabricate evidence in respect of that prosecution. Subsequently that prosecution was transferred from the Second Glass Magistrate to the First Glass Magistrate of Surat, Rao Saheb Patel, who tried the case and convicted the accused. Proceedings were then started by the Police against the present applicant in respect of his attempt to fabricate evidence. The original complaint was under Sections 201, 186 and; 116 of the Indian Penal Code,, but a charge was ultimately framed tinder Section 193, Indian Penal Code. On the framing o...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Anant Krishnaji Nulkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR242
Alness, J.1. The appellants in this case were defendants in a suit at the instance of the respondents before the District Judge of Khandesh. He decided in favour of the appellants,' but his decree was reversed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Hence this appeal.2. The first respondent had rendered certain war service, and in 1919 he applied to the Government for a grant of certain lands which are now in suit. On May 21, 1919, the Collector of the District of East Khandesh, Mr. Monteath, made an order, granting him the lands in question, subject to two conditions. These were (a) that the lands should be held free from payment of occupancy price, and (b) that the lands should be free of assessment till they were brought under cultivation. The lands were Government lands within the meaning of Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 (Act V). The first respondent duly entered into possession of them. On December 6, 1921, the Commissioner for the District made an order, dir...
Tag this Judgment!Saiyad Maher HuseIn Vs. Haji Alimahomed Jalaludin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom257; (1934)36BOMLR526
Broomfield, J.1. These appeals arise in a suit Under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code relating to an institution known as the Fir Mushayak roza at Ahmedabad. Pir Mushayak was a Muhammadan saint who flourished in the seventeenth century. He originally belonged to Kadi but settled in Ahmedabad and died there. He was a notable religious teacher who gathered numerous disciples and wrote books which are the main foundations of the Momin sect of Muhammadans. He was buried outside the Sarangpur Gate at Ahmedabad where he had acquired some property. His tomb is an object of veneration to the devotees of the Momin faith and an uras is held every year on the anniversary of his death to which pilgrims come from Bombay and various parts of Gujarat. Apparently, there are no Momins to speak of in Ahmedabad itself.2. Defendant No. 1 is the present head of the Momins and is a direct descendant of Pir Mushayak. He resides at Palanpur and occasionally visits Ahmedabad. The Momin. community is divi...
Tag this Judgment!Said Maher HuseIn Vs. Haji Alimahomed Jalaludin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1933
Reported in: 152Ind.Cas.50
Broomfield, J.1. These appeals arise in a suit under Section 92, Civil Procedure Code relating to an institution known as the Pir Mushayak Roza at Ahmedabad. Pir Mushayak was a Muharnmadan saint who flourished in the seventeeth century. He originally belonged to Kadi but settled in Ahmedabad and died there. He was a notable religious teacher who gathered numerous disciples and wrote books which are the main foundations of the Momin sect of Muhammadans. He was buried outside the Sarangpur Gate at Ahmedabad where he had acquired some property. His tomb is an object of veneration to the devotees of the Momin faith and an uras held every year on the anniversary of his death to which pilgrims come from Bombay and various parts of Gujarat. Apparently, there are no Momins to speak of in Ahmedabad itself. Defendant No. 1 is the present head of the Momins and is a direct descendant of Pir Mushayak. He resides at Palanpur and occasionally visits Ahmedabad. The Momin community is divided into gro...
Tag this Judgment!Moulvi Khalilur Rahman Khan Vs. the Collector of Etah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR237
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal from an order and judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated June 24, 1930, confirming the order of the Subordinate Judge of Etah, dated April 22, 1929, in the matter of the execution of a final decree for sale dated July 29, 1922, in a mortgage suit.2. The appellant is the successor of Abdul Jalil Khan, a zemindar of Aligarh, who died on October, 1923.3. The material facts are as follows :- Abdul Jalil Khan in 1909 or 1910 borrowed money from various people, and several decrees were made against him.4. The decrees were simple money decrees, and the property, which was attached in execution of the decrees, being ancestral property, the execution proceedings were transferred to the Collector in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Code of Civil Procedure.5. On August 29, 1911, the Collector, as he was entitled to do, granted a lease to Habib-ur Rahman Khan of the property belonging to the judgment debtor, Abdul ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Tippanna Koutya Mannavaddar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom157; (1934)36BOMLR212
Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Belgaum under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It appears that certain accused persons were charged under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, before the learned Honorary Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum, who acquitted them under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He thereupon, in exercise of the powers conferred upon him by Section 250, called upon the complainant to show cause why he should not be ordered to pay compensation to the accused on the ground that the charge he had made against them was false, and either frivolous or vexatious. The learned Magistrate then recorded the reasons given by the complainant for suggesting that he ought not to be dealt with under Section 250, and being dissatisfied with those reasons, the learned Magistrate directed the complainant to pay Rs. 50 to all the accused. An application was then made by the complainant to the Sessions Judge of Belga...
Tag this Judgment!Lim Charlie Vs. the Official Receiver
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR235
Lancelot Sanderson, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants against a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon in its appellate jurisdiction, dated March 19, 1931, reversing the decree of Das J., pronounced on the Original Side of the High Court, dated September 4, 1930.2. The plaintiff was appointed in a civil suit in the High Court receiver of the house and land which is the subject-matter of this suit and which is alleged to be part of the estate of the late Lim Chin Tsong. The suit was brought to recover possession of the said house and land, of which the defendants were in possession. The defendants are the son and daughter of Ma Mya May and claim to be her heirs and legal representatives. The suit was brought against the said Ma Mya May, who died during the pendency of the suit : the above-mentioned son and daughter were then placed on the record as defendants.3. The question for determination was whether the property formed part of the estate of Lim Chin Tsong on his ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »