Mumbai Court June 1925 Judgments
Hira Bibi Vs. Ram Hari Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1144
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree, dated June 10, 1921, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, partly affirming and partly reversing a judgment and decree of the District Judge of Patna. The suit was brought to enforce a mortgage, dated August 17, 1906. It was pleaded by the defendants (appellants; that the mortgage bond is void by reason of its not being attested in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act IV of 1882, Section 59.2. The only important question upon this appeal is in regard to the appellant Musammat Hira Bibi and her liability on the mortgage bond. It is admitted that she actually signed the bond, but it is a document which requires attestation by witnesses, as is provided by statute.3. Hira Bibi is a purdanashin lady. The evidence shows, beyond contest, that when Hira Bibi signed the mortgage bond not one of the persons who signed as witnesses was present or Haw her sign it. She was behind the purdah. Anant Prasad, her...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Naginlal Maganlal Jaichand Vs. Ex Parte Gunvantrai Dhirajlal De ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom543; (1925)27BOMLR1207
Taraporewala, J.1. The executor of the petitioning creditor in this insolvency proceeding has taken out thus notice of motion against the first Class Subordinate Judge, Ahmedabad, and three other persons being the receivers of the estates of the insolvents appointed by the First Class Subordinate Judge, Ahmedabad, in. insolvency proceedings pending in the said Court, and Mr. Shivdasani, the liquidator of the Whittle Spinning and ., for an order (a) either to transfer or stay the proceedings in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad and order the receivers appointed by the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad to hand over all the assets, effects, papers, vouchers, information collected, &c;, to the Official Assignee of Bombay subject to the payment of such allowance, if any, as to this Court may seem right to be made to the said receivers out of the estate of the said insolvents come into their hands, or (6) to direct the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvanathbhat Annabhat Pujari Vs. Mallappa Ningappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom514; (1925)27BOMLR1103
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge of Dharwar, who, reversing the decree of the trial Court, dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout The suit was one to recover possession of the plaint lane with costs and future mesne profits, an the ground that the plaint land belonged to the plaintiff. His mother during hi minority purporting to act as his guardian had sold the land to one Ningappa, the deceased father of defendants, on August '2 1905. The sale was sought to be set aside on three grounds: (1 that the sale-deed was a fraud on registration; (3) that the sale was not for the benefit or the plaintiff; and (8) that the Mali was of the nature of u mortgage and the amount of con federation had already been paid off from the profits of the land.2. The fraud on registration set up by the plaintiff' is based or the fact that only a portion of the land in the sale-deed was within the jurisdiction of the Sub-Registrar of Navalgund...
Tag this Judgment!Vishvanathbhat Annabhat Pujari Vs. Mallappa Ningappa and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1925
Reported in: 92Ind.Cas.628
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge of Dharwar, who, reversing the decree of the Trial Court, dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout. The suit was one to recover possession of the plaint land with costs and future mesne profits, on the ground that the plaint land belonged to the plaintiff. His mother during his minority purporting to act as his guardian had sold the land to one Mngappa, the deceased father of defendants, on August 2, 1905. The sale was sought to be set aside on three grounds: (1) that the sale-deed was a fraud on registration; (2) that the sale was not for the benefit of the plaintiff; and (3) that the sale was of the nature of a mortgage and the amount of consideration had already been paid off from the profits of the land.2. The fraud on registration set up by the plaintiff is based on the fact that only a portion of the land in the sale-deed was within the jurisdiction of the Sub Registrar of Navalgund, who registered the sale...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jagardeo Ramsumer Tewari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom489; (1925)27BOMLR1043; 90Ind.Cas.311
Fawcett, J.1. This is a rule which has been issued against the Jailor, Yeravda Jail, calling upon him, to show cause why the petitioner Jagardeo Ramaumer Tewari should not be brought before this Court to be dealt with according to law and why he should not be set at liberty, etc., in the exercise of this Court's power under Section 491, Criminal Procedure Code,2. The main facts of the case are not in dispute. The father of the petitioner was born at the village of Ramdupati, which at that time was in the Mirzapur district of the United Provinces. But some thirty or forty years back he came from there to Bombay, where he kept buffaloes and Carried on a milkman's business. He had several sons, the third of whom is the present petitioner, who is stated to be about thirty years old According to the affidavit which has been filed on petitioner's behalf and which is supported by other affidavits, the eldest son came to Bombay in about 1903. But after staying there for about twelve months he ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nana Ramji Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1038; 97Ind.Cas.747
Fawcett, J.1. There is no doubt that the order passed by the Special Magistrate, First Class, Malegaon (Budruk), is premature as ruled in Emperor v. Rangya (1902) 4 Bom. L.R. 934. On the other hand, Section 123, Sub-section (1), Criminal Procedure Code, itself directs that, if any person ordered to give security under Section 106 or Section 118 does not give such security, on or before the date on which the period for which such security is to be given commences, he shall, if already in prison, be detained in prison until such period expires or until within such period he gives the security to the Court or Magistrate who made the order requiring it. Therefore, strictly speaking, no further order is required except on the point whether the imprisonment on failure to furnish security should be rigorous or simple, and on any questions that may arise as to the security tendered.2. We agree generally with the views expressed by the Remembrancer of Legal Affairs in Government Resolution No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Gulabchand Rupji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom134; (1925)27BOMLR1039
Mirza, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the accused against an order of the Resident First Class Magistrate, Nadiad, who rejected the accused's application to quash certain criminal proceedings pending in his Court under Sections 467 and 109, Indian Penal Code, against the accused.2. The contention of the accused is that a document in respect, of which a charge of abetment of forgery is made against him in those proceedings was ' produced' before the Extra First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat in the Civil Suit No. 529 of 1922, that any prosecution against him in respect of such a document can be instituted only on a written complaint of the Subordinate Judge and admittedly as there is no written complaint the present proceedings are irregular and should be quashed.3. It appears that the accused was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 529 of 1922. The plaintiff' in that suit had obtained a decree against the accused and had filed a darkhast in the Extra First Class Sub...
Tag this Judgment!Nowroji Rustomji Wadia Vs. Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1140
Sumner, J.1. In 1917 the Municipality of Bombay acquired a plot of land for purposes connected with an existing hospital, and the usual statutory proceedings took place before the Collector of Bombay to fix the amount of compensation to be paid for the land. The owner, being dissatisfied with the amount awarded, viz., Rs. 98,724, claimed a reference to the High Court, and in 1920 Kajiji J. varied the Collector's award by increasing the rate to be allowed per square yard superficial from Rs. 8 to Rs. 10. This raised the total compensation to Rs. 1,39,970. Upon an appeal by the Municipality the High Court set aside the learned Judge's decree and dismissed the reference. They thus in effect confirmed the Collector's award. From this decision the claimant now appeals.2. The value to be placed at a given moment on a plot of land, which is not in the market or the subject of bargain and sale, but owes a large part of any value it possesses to the prospective results of development work, to b...
Tag this Judgment!Gulabchand Rupji Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-12-1925
Reported in: AIR1925Bom467; 92Ind.Cas.427
Mirza, J.1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the accused against an order of the Resident First Class Magistrate, Nadiad, who rejected the accused's application to quash certain criminal proceedings pending in his Court under Sections 4(57 and 109, Indian Penal Code, against the accused.2. The contention of the accused is that a document in respect of which a charge of abetment of forgery is made against him in those proceedings was 'produced' before the Extra First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat in the Civil Suit No. 529 of 1922, that any prosecution against him in respect of such a document can be instituted only on a written complaint of the Subordinate Judge and admittedly as there is no written complaint the present proceedings are irregular and should be quashed.3. It appears that the accused was the defendant in Civil Suit No. 529 of 1922. The plaintiff in that suit had obtained a decree against the accused and had filed a darkhast in the Extra First Class Subor...
Tag this Judgment!Kondapalli Vijayaratnam Vs. Mandapaka Sudarsana Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1082
Salvesen, J. 1. The circumstances out of which this suit has arisen, so far as they are material to the judgment, may be very shortly stated.2. One Mandapaka Appanna, a Sudra in the Ganjam district, who was possessed of a considerable amount of property, died in 1906 leaving a widow and two daughters, the latter being the plaintiffs in the action. When on his death-bed and within an hour or two of his actual death he executed a document, which purported to be a disposition of his property and at the same time conferred a power of adoption on his widow. This document was registered as a will at the instance of a legatee It was challenged by the plaintiffs (who tire still in minority) on the ground among others (1) that it was not genuine and (2) assuming that the signature which it bore to be that of the deceased, that he was incapable at the time of understanding its contents owing to the illness from which he shortly afterwards died.3. Both Courts have decided, although with much hesi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›