Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 90Ind.Cas.211
Hugh Walmsley, J.1. I agree in the view expressed by my learned brother Mr. Justice B.B. Ghose in the judgment which he is going to deliver.Greaves, J.2. I also agree, in the view expressed in that judgment.C.C. Ghose, J.3. The question that has been referred to the Full Bench is as to whether a suit for rent is maintainable against some of the heirs or successors-in-interest of a deceased tenant without bringing all the heirs or successors-in-interest on the record. In my view, the answer to the question ought to be in the negative. It will serve no useful purpose to discuss the conflicting authorities on the point. It is sufficient for me to observe that I adhere to the view which I expressed in the case of Abinash Chandra Roy v. Fulchand Chaudhuri.(7). I have heard nothing during the (sic) of the argument to induce me to (sic) from the opinion expressed by me in the above case. In my opinion, the suit as framed, should be dismissed and the appeal preferred by the defendants allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 13Ind.Cas.377
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has given rise to this appeal is a tract of land whereof settlement was obtained by one U. Timon from the Government on the 21st October 1884, under a qubuliat executed for a term of ten years. The grantee died shortly after, and left behind him a brother U. Hedlot and two sisters Ka Sengai and Ka Laban. Immediately after his death, his brother, in 1885, got his own came entered in the qubuliat as his successor-in-interest and apparently continued in possession thereafter. U. Hedlot transferred a portion of his interest in the disputed land to some of the defendants on the 22nd March 1887. On the 13th November 1895, the two sisters of U. Timon commenced an action for declaration of title to the disputed land and for recovery of possession. Their case in substance was, that they were Khasias and that under the customary rules of inheritance prevalent amongst them, sisters were entitled to succeed in preference to brothers. The defendants to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1925)ILR52Cal253
Walmsley, J.1. There are two appeals before us, and a reference under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The circumstances are as follows. It is said that the accused had a quarrel with the family of one Momrej, and that one night they went to his house and set fire to the hat in which Momrej and his two wives and some children were sleeping: the inmates of this hut were not allowed to escape, and they were all burned to death. In other huts Entaz and Bibijan were sleeping, and they were also killed.2. The Committing Magistrate framed charges under Section 120B, read with Section 302, of the Penal Code, and under Section 302 of the Penal Code, and Section 436 of the Penal Code. The learned Judge made changes in the charge under Section 120B read with Section 302 of the Penal Code. The jury was unanimous in finding all the accused guilty on all the charges. The Judge agreed with the verdict and sentenced two of the men to death, and the others to transportation for life. Hence ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Reported in : AIR1950PC90
LORD MACDERMOTT: These three consolidated appeals are from a decree, dated 22nd September 1947, of the High Court at Bombay (acting in its appellate jurisdiction) which reversed a decree, dated 7th January 1947, of the same Court (acting in its original civil jurisdiction) whereby a suit (No.1086 of 1942) brought by the above named Jamsetji A.H. Chinoy and Messrs. Chinoy and Co. (respondents in the first and second appeals and appellants in the third) was dismissed. 2. This suit was instituted on 24th August 1942, against the above named Edulji F. E. Dinshaw and Bachubai F. E. Dinshaws (hereinafter referred to as "the Dinshaws" as sole defendants. The plaint alleged that the Dinshaws held between them 1,200 A and 1,200 B shares in an Indian company named F.E. Dinshaw Ltd. and had contracted on 8th July 1942, through their agent Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (hereinafter called "Shapoorji'.) to sell these shares to the plaintiff Jamsetji A. H. Chinoy at the price of Rs. 3,000 per collective...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR471; 95Ind.Cas.49
Norman Macleod, Kt.,C.J.1. Ismailji Abdulali, the father of three children under the age of eighteen, viz. Amina, Hussena and Mariam, applied to this Court, under the provisions of Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, for an order for the production of the children against Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin Mullaji Saheb. A rule nisi was issued for the production of the minors, and when the matter first came on for hearing, Mariam, the youngest of the three sisters, was actually before the Court, and there being no question between the parties with regard to the proper custody of Mariam, the Judge ordered Mariam to be entrusted to the custody of her father. 2. On the affidavits it appeared that the other two children were outside the limits of the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, so the Judge allowed the petition to be amended by making it clear that it was a petition not only under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code, but also for the exercise of the common law power of this C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
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...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1945Bom494; (1945)47BOMLR716
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Coyajee J. on an application for stay of arbitration proceedings under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. The plaintiff, claiming to be the adopted son of defendant No. 1, filed this suit for several declarations on the footing that on adoption he became a member of the joint family. He claimed discovery and partition in the joint family properties. He alleged that he was adopted on February 9, 1942. On coming to know of this suit, defendant No. 1 took out a notice of motion for stay, on the ground that under two agreements dated January 30, 1942, and July. 26, 1942, the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had agreed to refer all matters which may arise and cause disputes between them to arbitration. In support of that notice of motion defendant No. 1 filed an affidavit in which he propounded the two documents mentioned above. The plaintiff filed his affidavit in reply in which he denied that he had executed the documents propou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1917Bom210; (1917)19BOMLR638; 41Ind.Cas.238
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. On the 4th of November 1901, a decree was passed by the trial Court at Dharwar for delivery to the plaintiff of certain lands. In execution of that decree the lands were delivered to the plaintiff. On an appeal preferred on behalf of the applicant, who was then a minor, the High Court amended the decree on the 17th of August 1903, by excepting from the decree for delivery two Survey Numbers. Those Survey Numbers, however, remained in the possession of the plaintiff and the applicant attained majority on the 1st of October 1912. On the 4th of August 1914, the present application was made for delivery to him of the two Survey Numbers excepted by the judgment of the High Court in appeal from the scope of the decree of the trial Court. The application which is one which the applicant would be entitled to make under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure is barred by time, unless it is an application for the execution of a decree within the meaning of Section 6 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1935)37BOMLR544
Russell, J.1. The appellents are a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. They carry on the business of bankers in Burma through the head office at Pyapon and various branches, one of which was at Bogale. They may be conveniently referred to as the Bank. The respondents to the appeal are a trading company incorporated in Japan. They carry on business in Burma, and in the course thereof they purchase rice from paddy traders. They may be conveniently referred to as the Japanese company, or as the plaintiffs.2. In the neighbourhood of Bogale are to be found rice mills to which the traders bring their paddy for the purpose of having it milled. One of these mills, the Natchaungwa Mill, had been mortgaged by its owner to the Bank, and at -all times relevant to this appeal the Bank were mortgagees in possession of this mill and were milling paddy there for various paddy traders. For brevity's sake this mill will be referred to as the N. mill. It was managed by one Ba Maw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1929)31BOMLR647
Baker, J.1. The facts of this case are that the plaintiff as purchaser of the rights of three out of the five reversioners of Amagowda sued to recover possession of his three-filths share by partition from defendant No. 6 who was an alienee from Mahalingawa, the widow of Amagowda, and defendants Nos. 5 and 7 who are the reversioners as regards the remaining two-fifths share were added. The defendant No. 6 pleaded legal necessity for the sale. That was found against him. It was also found that he and not defendants Nos. 5 and 7 were in possession of the plaint property, and the first Court passed a decree in plaintiff's favour for possession by partition of his three-fifths share, Defendants Nos. 5 and 7 asked in their written statement that they might be given their two-thirds share in the property. It was held their share was two-fifths, but their claim was rejected on the ground that it was preferred for the first time more than twelve years from the death of the widow Mahalingawa, a...
Tag this Judgment!