Mumbai Court July 1925 Judgments
Rupchand Balmukund Aharwala Vs. Jankibai Kanhyalal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1925
Reported in: 91Ind.Cas.817
1. The plaintiff sued to have it declared that he had got one-fifth Share in the properties left by one Balmukund, and that he was not liable for more than one-fifth of the debts due. Further he sued for an equitable partition of the properties and for separation of his one-fifth share therein, and for mesne profits before suit and future profits.2. Balmukund died in 1904 leaving two widows. The plaintiff was adopted by the senior widow, while the junior widow also adopted one Hanumandas. When the widows died the reversioners disputed the adoptions. Two separate suits were filed against the two adopted sons, asking for a declaration that the adoptions were invalid. Both the adoptions have been held to be invalid, and the reversioners have been declared to be the real owners of the property. The suits were not finally concluded until 1918.3. In April 1918 while the appeal was pending in the High Court, an application was made on behalf of the present plaintiff to file an alleged agreeme...
Tag this Judgment!The New East India Press Co. Ltd. Vs. Rameshvar Nandlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1925
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1410
Crump, J.1. This is a suit to recover the balance due on dealings between plaintiffs as pakka adatias and the defendant as a constituent, There is now no dispute as to the terms of the business. Plaintiff's were entitled to charge half per cent, ascommission, and nine per cent, interest on all advances made against goods entrusted to plaintiffs for sale. Defendants were bound to find margin money on demand. If they failed to do so plaintiffs were entitled to sell the goods. It was originally alleged that plaintiffs could in this event buy themselves but that position was deliberately abandoned by their counsel. In other respects the dealings were of the familiar type where the parties are pakka adatias and constituent.2. There is little or no dispute as to the main facts. On or about January 9,1918, plaintiffs received seventy-two bales of Mandsor cotton from defendants and advanced Rs. 13,000. On April 5, 1918, plaintiffs received a further consignment of seventy-one bales and advance...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpati Kondaji Sandbhar Vs. Maruti Gangaji Sandbhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1925
Reported in: (1925)27BOMLR1115; 90Ind.Cas.654
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J. 1. The applicant is the lessee of certain property which was leased to him for ten years on July 30, 1921, by the owner Kashibai, one of the terms of the lease being that the tenancy was to be forfeited if the tenant failed to pay the rent provided for in the lease. The opponent purchased the land in dispute from Kashibai on June 30, 1924, and got the lease in suit transferred to himself on August 20, 19-3, As the applicant had not paid rent, the opponent filed a suit on June 19, 1924, in the Mamlatdaras Court to recover possession. The Mamlatdar decided the suit in favour of the plaintiff and directed that the plaintiff should be put in possession of the land An application to the Collector to revise this order was rejected without hearing the applicant. He has now come to this Court asking us to interfere on the ground that the Collector ought not to have rejected the application without hearing the applicant or his pleader. We are not concerned in this appl...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Keshav Naik Vs. Gangabai Nakayan Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom137; (1925)27BOMLR1334; 94Ind.Cas.560
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. recorded a judgment dismissing the appeal on its merits. COYAJEE J. concurred in the judgment, and added :] It was however contended before us, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the document Exhibit 67 was not registered in accordance with the provisions of Section 85 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, it did not therefore affect any of the properties comprised therein, and was not receivable in evidence. The facts material to a correct appreciation of this contention are briefly these. On April 10, 1890, Keahav and Gopinath signed the document and it was also duly attested. In May 1890 Keshav died, before the document was registered, On August 11, 1890, a fresh Clause was added giving a more detailed description of the properties. This was signed by Gopinath for himself, and Bai Gopikabai, the widow of Keshav, as the guardian of the plaintiff and his brother Shripad, both of whom were then infanta, This was attested by the same set of attesting witnesses....
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Abdul Gani Bahadurbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom71; (1925)27BOMLR1373
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay from an acquittal by the Third Presidency Magistrate of the accused Abdul Gani Bahadurbhai alias Karim Kasam.2. The accused is a Mahometan of Kathiawar and has been doing business as a baker at Blantyre in Africa. He returned to India about the end of October 1924. On November 12, 1924, accompanied by the witness Vanechand, a clerk in a Velophone office, he presented at the French Bank in Bombay and obtained payment of a bill of exchange No. 3281 (Ex, A) dated June 10,. 1,924, from the Blantyre branch of the Standard Bank of South Africa on their London office for 900. The next day he presented and attempted to obtain payment at the Eastern Bank of Bombay of a similar Bill No. 3293 (Ex. E) from the same branch in South Africa on their London office for 12,000. The Bombay Police had, however, on June 27 and July 5, received two telegrams purporting to emanate from the Chief Commissioner of Police, Nyasaland, informing the Com...
Tag this Judgment!The Collector Vs. Ramchandra Harischandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom44; (1925)27BOMLR1276
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge of Thana on a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The land in question measures 13 acres and 27 gunthas, and is situate at Chernbur. The Acquiring Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,000 per acre for the agricultural lands, 13 acres and 21 gunthas, and Rs. 833 for the remaining portion of the land, plus 15 per cent thereon, Most of the lands were notified for acquisition on December 5, 1918, and the remainder on June 23, 1919, The total amount awarded by the Collector was Rs. 27,908. The claimant asked for an award of Rs. 46,478 +15 per cent for compulsory acquisition. The Judge increased the award by Rs. 16,037-8-0. The Government of Bombay being dissatisfied with that decision have appealed. It appears from the Notification that the land was leased for a period of eleven years from 1914. Two years prior to the notification, the rent under the lease was Rs. 600 per ...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmavva Adiveppa Somraddi Vs. Venkappa Govindappa Kademani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom26; (1925)27BOMLR1331
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to have it declared that defendant No 1 had not taken defendant No. 2 in adoption and that if taken, the adoption was invalid, that defendant No 1 was not competent to make alienations which would be valid beyond her lifetime, and that such alienations did not bind her reversioners. A pedigree of the family for the purpose of this suit may be set out as follows :- Bhimraddi | ------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | Somaraddi Adiveppa Venkappa Shaaawa Ningawa = Bhimawa =Hanmawa (died 1902) (died 1901) | | Deft. 1. = Chinnawa | Huohappa Deft. 6. Venkappa (died May 1903) Piff2. The first defendant Hanmawa adopted a son, who is the second defendant. Chinnawa, defendant No. 6, adopted also a son who is not made a party to the suit. The trial Judge held that the adoption of the second defendant by the first defendant was invalid, and as the alienations by defendant No. 1 were not proved to have been for necessity, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Usuf Dadabhai Vs. Chand Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-20-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom51; (1925)27BOMLR1273
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Superintendent of Stamps of the Central Provinces and Berar under Section 57 (1) (b) of the Indian Stamp Act.2. Usuf Dadabhai filed a Suit in the civil Court on two bills of exchange of Rs. 500 each. One was stamped with an eight anna postage stamp and a one anna postage and revenue stamp equivalent to a sum of nine annas, the amount of duty leviable on the bill. The second bill of exchange was stamped with four eight anna postage stamps, two four anna postage stamps and one one anna postage and revenue stamp of the total value of Rs. 2-9-0 being stamps of the proper duty leviable on the bill.3. The plaintiff applied under Section 37 of the Indian Stamp Act and Rule 18 of the Rules framed thereunder to the Collector for validation and certification of the bills, on payment of the duty required by the rule. The Collector passed an order that having regard to the ruling of the Judicial Commissioner's Court in Tukarmn v. Sonajee (1910...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kazi Dawood Kazi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR79
Taraporewala, J.1. Mr. Gupte tenders the statement on oath of the accused Kazi Dawood Kazi made before the witness, Mr. B.N. Athavle, as Coroner, at the inquest held by him on the body of Rahimatbi, wife of the accused.2. Mr. Velinker for the accused objected to the statement being admitted in evidence on the ground that the proceedings before the Coroner were not criminal proceedings within the meaning of Section 132 of the Indian Evidence Act and that Section 132 therefore did not apply, and that the general rule in England, namely, that the witness need not answer any question, the tendency of which is to expose the witness to any criminal charge penalty or forfeiture, should be applied, and that the answers of the witness to questions by the Coroner the tendency of which was to expose the witness to the charge of abetment of the suicide of his wife should not be allowed to be used in this case. 3. In several modern statutes in England a witness is compelled to answer even questions...
Tag this Judgment!Vaman Trimbak Joshi Vs. Changi Damodar Shimpi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1925
Reported in: AIR1926Bom97; (1925)27BOMLR1261
Fawcett, J.1. This litigation arises out of a transaction on September 28, 1911. On that date one Damodar Ramchandra passed a registered sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1, Shankar. By the terms of that deed there was an absolute sale of the plaintiffs' property by Damodar to Shankar. On the same day the vendee Shankar passed an unregistered agreement to Damodar that he would reconvey the property to the vendor, provided the latter paid the purchase money, namely Rs. 2,000, to him within a period of eleven years. Damodar is now dead, and on May 12, 1921, his legal representatives, namely the plaintiff No. 1, his daughter and plaintiff No. 2 his widow, assigned their rights under that transaction in favour of the plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 by a registered deed of that date. On September 2, 1921, that is to say, within the period of eleven years mentioned in the agreement of September 28, 1911, the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 brought a suit to obtain specific performance of this agreement an...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »