Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 7Ind.Cas.102
1. The substantial question of law, which we are invited to decide in this appeal, relates to the true effect of Section 109 comprised in Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885 as amended by Act III of 1898 B.C. and as it stood before the charges made by the Eastern Bengal and Assam Tenancy Amendment Act of 1908 came into force. The Court of appeal below, in reversal of the decision of the Court of first instance, has held that the effect of Section 109 is to bar all suits in Civil Court for declaration that entries made in a record-of-rights finally published under Section 103A, are erroneous, when such publication has been followed by an application by the landlord under Section 105 for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of the land entered in the record as held by the tenants. The circumstances under which this question arises for decision are not disputed, and are indeed all matters of record. The record-of-rights was finally published on the 13th December 1904; ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR737
Macleod, J.1. In January last the triennial election of eight Councillors for B. Ward Mandvi to the Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay was held according to the provisions of the City of Bombay Municipal Act III of 1888. There were fifteen candidates and the result of the poll was duly declared by the Municipal Commissioner under Section 28 (/) of the Act. Under Section 28 (q] the first eight candidates were deemed to be elected.2. A petition was then presented under Section 33 of the Act by one Husenbhai Abdulabhai Laljee to the Chief Judge of the Small Causes Court praying that the whole election or the election of the eight Councillors or of one or more of them might be set aside and a scrutiny held. The fifteen candidates and the Municipal Commissioner were made respondents. The Chief Judge held an inquiry and set aside the election of Lakhamsey Nappoo and Khimji Hirji Kayani who occupied the 3rd and 6th positions amongst the successful candidates.3. The Chief Judge then c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1910)12BOMLR621
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The learned Judge, from whose decree in favour of the 1st respondent, Chabildas Laloobhoy, this appeal is preferred, has held that the sum of Rs. 15,000, which the said respondent received from his undivided brothers under an agreement (Ex. R.) in the year 1866, was, on the analogy of a gift by a Hindu father to his son, a gift by the joint family consisting of the respondent and his brothers, in consideration of the services he had rendered to the family. Apart from the question whether any such analogy applies to a transaction such as this between brothers, and whatever its legal character and effect as between the parties to the agreement the sum received by the respondent from the joint family would retain its character as ancestral, as between him and his sons if the source whence it came was an ancestral fund of the family.2. The question whether Rs. 15,000 received by the respondent under the agreement came from such source will, however, arise only ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1911)21MLJ202
Charles Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. The first question which has been referred to us is whether the registered instrument referred to in Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act must be signed by the lessor. Section 9 of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a transfer of property may be made without writing in every case in which a writing is not expressly required by law. Section 107 provides that a lease to which the section applies can be made only by a registered instrument. This, I take it, is an express provision that lease to which the section applies must be in writing. Section 105 defines a lease of immoveable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property. I do not think that Section 107 can be relied on as enacting, either expressly or by implication, that a lease must be executed by the lessor. Can Section 105 be relied on for this purpose? I think not. By Section 105 a lease is a transfer of a right to enjoy property. I do not think, for the purposes of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1911)13BOMLR359
Robson, J.1. The question to be determined in this appeal is whether or not the suit is barred by the Indian Limitation Act of 1877.2. There is no doubt that when first brought, it was well within the statutory period of three years, but it is contended by the respondents that it was not then brought by all the proper and necessary plaintiffs, and that afterwards, when the record was amended in that respect, the statutory time had expired.3. The suit was commenced by the first three plaintiffs on the record. They are the managing members of an undivided Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara law, and, as such managing members, they carry on the business of money-lenders together at Hanumanganj in the district of Ballia, as a firm, under the name and style of Manorath Bhagat Dhana Ram.4. The other members of the joint family do not participate in the management of that business or 'shop,' as it is called, and the loan transactions out of which the claim arises were negotiated and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : 9Ind.Cas.1023
1. On the 24th day of December 1900 the Bank of Upper India Limited obtained a money-decree against three Officers of His Majesty's Regular Forces. No application for execution of this, decree, as the term is ordinarily understood, was made until the 8th day of April 1910 when the decree-creditor applied to the Subordinate Judge of Meerut for execution of the decree by attachment of half of the salary of one of the said Officers, Colonel R. Lecky, appellant to this appeal.2. The judgment-debtor, Colonel R. Lecky, objected to the attachment proposed by the decree-creditor on the grounds that:1. the application was barred;2. his salary was not liable to attachment;3. the decree does not empower the decree-holder to realise under it certain premiums alleged by the decree-holder to have been paid in order to keep alive certain insurance policies held by the Bank as security for the monies originally advanced by the said Bank.3. Other objections were raised, but the present appeal is not co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1911)13BOMLR590
Scott, C.J.1. In this case the following facts are undisputed. The plaintiff held two policies upon the life of Dwarkadas Dharamsey, one in the London and Lancashire Assurance Company and the other in the New York Assurance Company, which had been deposited with him by Dwarkadas as security for pecuniary liabilities incurred by the plaintiff from time to time on behalf of Dwarkadas.2. On the the 23rd of April 1909, the plaintiff was responsible upon promissory notes and bills of Dwarkadas to the extent of Rs. 75,000 and in July those obligations were renewed. Of those a sum of Rs. 50,000 was payable by the 1st of September and Rs. 25,000 by the 20th of September 1909 to the Indian Specie Bank. On the 20th of August 1909, the plaintiff received notice from the Bank to discharge the obligations upon their due dates and was informed that the advances would not be renewed. On the 28th of August Dwarkadas committed suicide, and in the month of September the plaintiff had to deposit security...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1911)13BOMLR1061
Davar, J.1. The appellant, Mr. Ahmedbhai Habibbhai, a well-known wealthy Khoja merchant of Bombay, in January 1907 entered into a contract to sell a very valuable property situate at Mount Pleasant Road, Malabar Hill, to the late Mrs. Awabai Fraraji Petit. The offer and acceptance resulting in the contract of sale of this property, is evidenced by two letters, respectively dated the 31st of January and the 1st of February 1907. By his letter Mr. Ahmedbhai agrees to make out a good title to the property free from all incurabrances and claims whatsoever, and the sale was to be completed within two months from the date of the offer. A formal preliminary agreement containing the terms of this contract was within the contemplation of the parties, and a draft of the contemplated agreement was prepared by Bai Awabai's solicitors, but, for reasons not necessary to discuss, the same was not executed. There is no difference between the parties as to the terms of the contract arrived at between t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1911)13BOMLR583
Davar, J.1. On the 15th of June 1909, the two plaintiffs filed this suit against three defendants, Mahomedali Ebrahim, Cassum Ebrahim and Cawasji Motabhai, alleging that the property in the plaint mentioned was religious charitable property, that the first two defendants had arranged to mortgage the said property to the third defendant pursuant to an order obtained from the Court and got from him Rs. 500 as earnest money, that though the intended mortgage fell through the third defendant had obtained a collusive decree against the first two defendants and that the third defendant had attached the said charitable property and was about to have the same sold.2. They prayed for a scheme, for a declaration that the order authorizing the mortgage was null and void and may be set aside for an order restraining the sale, for accounts, and for further and other relief.3. Pending suit the first defendant died. The suit was called on for hearing before me on the 15th of August last when his name...
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!