Court : Kolkata
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.573
Woodroffe, J.1. The first plaintiff appellant is the third widow of Rai Jadu Nath Mukerjee Bahadur, the testator. The second plaintiff is her minor son and the third is the minor widow of another son. The defendant respondents are the sons of the testator's deceased second wife Srimati Sattyabati Debi. The testator was the Government pleader of Hazaribagh and a man of considerable property. On the 16th November 1900, he executed a Will which was deposited in the Registry. This Will the Subordinate Judge has found to be a good family arrangement and according to the real intention of the testator. The defendants state that they are unaware of the steps which led to the execution of the Will. About four months, however, before the testator died, he left his house at Badambazar where all his children lived and went with the plaintiff and her relations to live in another house about a mile away called the Khirgram Bungalow. There are two circumstances in connection with this removal which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1907)9BOMLR1296
Macleod, J.1. The plaintiffs, a firm, of money-lenders at Poona, have filed this suit as a summary suit against the defendant, a Lieutenant in the Indian army, to recover the sum of Rs. 6409-12 alleged to be due for principal and interest on a demand promissory note for Rs. 6000 given to them by the defendant on the 14th September 1906. By an order of the 5th May 1907 the defendant was given liberty to defend the suit and his affidavit of the 1st May was taken as his written statement. The execution of the note is admitted and the questions I have to decide are (1) what were the true facts relating to the transactions between the parties and (2) whether the defendant is entitled to relief under Sections 16 and 19 of the Contract Act or otherwise. 2. It appears that on the 30th July the defendant, who was then stationed at Aurangabad, wrote to the plaintiffs asking them to come to him to arrange a loan. On the 1st August the plaintiffs replied asking for Rs. 10 to pay their travelling e...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1908)10BOMLR318
Russell, J.1. This ease to my mind raises an interesting question of law, upon which I have been unable to find any direct authority.2. The suit relates to a certain house and the furniture therein situated at Arthur Road, and the plaintiff is according to himself a milliner and dress-maker in Falkland Road, and a Baniah. By caste; and apparently for sometime past he had been minded to add to the gams of his millinery shop by keeping a brothel, as he very frankly admits.3. The defendant is a Jewish lady of quality, and apparently this is the first transaction which she has had with the plaintiff. 4. It appears that the house in question is the property of a firm in Bombay and by an indenture of lease dated the 1st April 1906, made between that firm and the plaintiff, the firm let to the plaintiff this bungalow at Rs. 300 a month for two years. But the plaintiff did not obtain possession of the bungalow until the 10th of July 1906. If I may misapply an expression derived from the Roman ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1908)10BOMLR77
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The only question that arises on this appeal is whether the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors sitting in Bombay has jurisdiction to make an order under Section 26 of the Indian Insolvent Act against a person residing at Amritsar. The merits of the case have not beendiscussed before us.2. The Act was passed by the Imperial Parliament, which was competent to give the jurisdiction claimed; the words of the section are sufficiently wide for that purpose; and it is clear that under Section 7 the Court sitting here is authorised to make an order that would affect estate and effects situate outside the Presidency of Bombay. I can, therefore, find no sufficient reason on the face of the Act for withholding from Section 26 its literal and natural effect.3. But then it is argued that the Amended Letters Patent have affected the jurisdiction of the Court.4. By Section 2 of the Indian Insolvent Act it is provided that the Courts established as therein mentioned sha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1908)18MLJ497
Arnold White, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal under Article 15 of the Letters Patent, the learned Judges before whom the case came on second appeal having differed in opinion. The plaintiffs claim damages for the loss of 246 bags of rice out of a consignment of 4,000 bags carried by the defendants under a bill of lading from Rangoon to Tuticorin. These 246 bags with others were destroyed by the Municipal authorities after they had been landed, on account of their damaged condition. The plaintiffs alleged the damage was occasioned by the negligence of the defendants or their agents.2. The two main questions for consideration are:(1) On the facts were the defendants negligent? (2) If they were, are they protected by the terms of the bill of lading? The Court of first instance and the lower appellate Court held that there had been no negligence on the part of the defendants. The two learned Judges of this Court who heard the case on second appeal were both of opinion that the defendants had...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 4Ind.Cas.32
Arnold White, C.J.1. The two questions which have been referred to us are:1. Is notice of action necessary under Section 156(1) of the Local Boards Act, 1884, when the suit is for an injunction?2. Does the six months' limitation prescribed by Section 156(3) apply to such a suit?2. I take it that, for the purposes of our answer to the questions which have been referred to us, it is to be assumed that the suit for an injunction is on account of an act done or purporting to be done, in pursuance, or execution or intended execution of the act, or in respect of an alleged neglect or default in the execution of the act within the meaning of Section 156 of the Madras Local Boards Act (V of 1884).3. As regards the first question, it was held by this Court in President of the Taluk Board, Sivaganga v. Narayanan 16 M. 317 that under the provisions of Section 156 of the Local Boards Act, V of 1884, as originally enacted, the section did not apply to a suit for an injunction. I think this decision...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1908)10BOMLR1176
Davar, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts continued:--]The first question that arises under the decree is whether the Court had power or jurisdiction to vest the plaintiff's property in Special Commissioner, the second defendant herein. The question is specifically raised in para 9 of the plaint and by issue No. 5 in the Suit and it would I think be convenient to discuss this at once. If the Court had no power to vest the plaintiff's property in the Special Commissioner the conveyance, Ex. No. 3, executed by him on the 22nd of September 1906 in favour of the first defendant would be valueless. This question has recently arisen more than once but it has never been adjudicated upon and as a question of practice is one of considerable importance.2. It is a very suggestive fact that whereas in the first consent order Mr. Lane is very properly appointed a receiver, in this order subsequently obtained in the same suit and for very much the same purposes Mr. Manker is appointed a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 4Ind.Cas.1097a
Sankaran Nair, J.1. The following is the pedigree of the parties: SARAYYA had two sons and one daughter. _____________________|_________________________ | | | son daughter son Chelamann. Saramma adopted P. Tattaya | Venkanna (2nd defendant) | ________|__________________________________ | | | | | Sarayya (1st Subbannu Venkanna | plaintiff) | (2nd defendant). | ________________________|_____ | | | ____________|_________ Sreeramamoorthy Lakshmana (3rd | | defendant adopted Paddasarayya Gangayya by 2nd defendant) | (3rd plaintiff.) Subbayya (2nd plaintiff).2. The plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are members of an undivided family, and the 2nd defendant though born in their family has been adopted by Ayyanna, the son-in-law of Sarayya the grand-father of the 1st and 3rd plaintiffs, and has become a member of a separate family. The 3rd defendant is the adopted son of the 2nd defendant. It is the plaintiffs' case that all the property belonging to their joint family has been already divided a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1Ind.Cas.977
Arnold White, C.J.1. This is an appeal under Article 15 of the Letters Patent, the learned Judges before whom the case came on second appeal having differed in opinion. The plaintiffs claim damages for the loss of 246 bags of rice out of a consignment of 4,000 bags carried by the defendants under a bill of lading from Rangoon to Tuticorin. These 246 bags with others were destroyed by the municipal authorities after they had been landed, on account of their damaged condition. The plaintiffs alleged the damage was occasioned by the negligence of the defendants or their agents.2. The two main questions for consideration are: (1) On the facts were the defendants negligent? (2) If they were, are they protected by the terms of the bill of lading? The Court of First Instance and the lower appellate Court held that there had been no negligence on the part of the defendants. The two learned Judges of this Court who heard the case on second appeal were both of opinion that the defendants had bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 2Ind.Cas.173
Chandavarkar, J.1. The facts of this case, material for the purposes of this appeal, are undisputed and may be shortly stated:One Raghunathji Tarachand started a firm in Bombay in that name for carrying on business in cloth. On his death in 1902, his son Govardhandas continued the business. Govardhandas having died in March 1904, leaving his widow Parvatibai, two minor sons Narottam and Keshavlal, and five daughters, the cloth business was carried on for some time by the munim of the firm under the orders of the widow. When Narottam came of age, he looked after the business. Narottam was a friend of one Hirabhai Ghelabhai, a pearl merchant, who had been in the habit of getting others to draw promissory notes in his favour for the purposes of his business and negotiating them. Towards the end of 1907, the friends, who had so accommodated him, having refused to give notes in that way any further, Hirabhai persuaded Narottam to sign the promissory notes now in dispute and two more in the ...
Tag this Judgment!