Mumbai Court June 1924 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Kenchava Sanyellappa Hosmani Vs. Girimalappa Channappa Somasagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR779
Philmmore, J.1. This case involves some questions of importance. The parties are all relations, descendants of one Hanmanna. Ho had three children--a daughter, Basava, whose son Girimallapa Channappa Somasagar is the plaintiff and present respondent; a son Vadakappa who had two daughters, Kenchava and Gangava--who are the defendants and present appellants--and a son Hanmappa--of whom more hereafter. The third child of Hanmanna was another son, Ramanna since deceased. Ramanna married Chanbasava; they had no children, hut they adopted as a son, Parappa. He died a month after Ramanna. Thereupon, his adoptive mother Chanbasava succeeded to the property for the ordinary Hindu woman's estate, and upon her death, descent would have to he traced to Parappa as the propositus; and Hanmappa if he survived Chanabasava would be the natural heir to Parappa.2. The relationships can be illustrated on a genealogical table, thus:--Hanmanna|----------------------------------------------------------------...
R. Vaidyanatha Ayyar Vs. Swaminatha Ayyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1924
Reported in: (1924)26BOMLR1121
John Edge, J.1. These are consolidated appeals by defendants in a suit No. 1 of 1916 from two decrees, dated November 13, 1919, of the High Court at Madras, which affirmed with a trifling variation as to some property claimed, a preliminary decree dated April 15, 1918, and a final decree, dated September 30, 1918, of the Subordinate Judge of Kumbakonam.2. The suit relates to a chatram, also called a choultry, at Kumbakonam, and property alleged to be endowed property of the chatram. The chatram is now known as Kalyanarama Ayyar's chatram. Formerly it was known as Rajappa Ayyar's chatram. Two Brahamins were the plaintiffs. Since the suit was in appeal in the High Court one of the plaintiffs died; his legal representative is now on the record and is one of the respondents.3. The plaintiffs on November 13, 1916, brought this suit and claimed a declaration that the chatram was a public charitable institution having the properties mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint and seven, ninths of t...
Narsingirji Gyanagirji Vs. Raja Panuganti Parthasardhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1924
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR4
Blanesburgh, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated February 24, 1921, modifying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Nellore, dated October 5, 1918, and made in the original suit No. 1 of 1917.2. Issues raised by the appellant necessitated in the Courts below, and particularly in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, whose judgment their lordships would at once observe is conspicuous for its ability, care and completeness, a prolonged investigation and examination of conflicting evidence. Concurrent findings against the appellant on every issue of fact raised by him have, however, greatly narrowed the ambit of the dispute as presented to the Board, and no more than two questions-difficult and important questions it is true- have survived for discussion before their lordships.3. Of these one only has so far been argued. But it raises the fundamental dispute between the parties, which may be described as an issue as to the true nature of the ...
In Re: Ramdas Vishnudas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom511; (1924)26BOMLR713
The pendency of an application for sanction before a lower Court does not prevent a higher Court from granting the sanction under Section 476 A of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898.Section 11 of the Indian Oaths Act makes the evidence given under a special oath conclusive proof only as against the person who offers to be bound by it. It does not prevent the Court from attempting to establish that a particular statement made by the deponent is false in fact and false to his knowledge.Lallubhai Shah, Ag. C.J.1. Two points have been urged in support of this appeal which has been preferred to this Court under Section 476-B, Criminal Procedure Code. The first point is that as an application for sanction was made by the brother of the present appellant on July 11, 1922, which has not been disposed of, the District Court, to which that Court would be subordinate within the meaning of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, would not be competent to make an order under Section 476-A. It is an adm...
Emperor Vs. Ezekiel Moses Penkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom484; (1924)26BOMLR715
Lallubhai Shah, J.1. The few facts material for the purpose of the present application are these. The applicant applied for permission to build a house and a privy. It appears that there was an old privy on the spot. The Municipality, however, granted permission to build the house, but refused permission to erect a privy. Sometime thereafter, however, the applicant put up the privy in question on the site of the old privy. It has been found now that this was substantially a reconstruction of the privy. The applicant was prosecuted by the Municipality, among other things, for having committed a breach of By-law No. 9 of the By-laws for Privies framed by the Pen Municipality and sanctioned by the Commissioner, Southern Division.2. As regards the other charges the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. As to the charge relating to the contravening of Rule 9, he has been found guilty and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10.3. The accused has now applied to this Court for a revision of the ord...
Motilal Parsharam Vs. Fulchand Balaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-10-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom515; (1924)26BOMLR770; 83Ind.Cas.379
Lallubhai Shah, Actg., C.J.1. The appellant in this case, who was the decree-holder, applied for execution of the decree by sale of a certain ginning factory. In execution the date for putting it up for sale was fixed, and on that date the bid did not go beyond Rs. 5,000. It appears, however, that the property was valued by a Panch at Rs. 40,000. Shortly after this first bid the judgment-debtor made an application to the Court stating that the property was worth Rs. 60,000. On June 12 the decree-holder made an application, which in substance was an application for leave to bid. He stated in the application that, he was prepared to buy the property for Rs. 20,000. The learned Judge, however, ordered that if the plaintiff was prepared to pay the amount fixed by the Panch his offer would be accepted. The decree-holder did not raise his bid to that amount, and ultimately on June 20 the learned Judge passed the following order:--Nobody makes any bid in the auction sale of the immoveable pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›