Mumbai Court June 1926 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.
Dayanand Pandurang Nerkar and ors. Vs. Daji Narayan Nerkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom548a
Fawcett, J.1. This suit arises out of two decrees obtained against the plaintiffs' father Pandurang. He and his brothers, Defendants Nos. 1 and 5, formed a joint Hindu family, at any rate, till about 1902. The decrees were against the plaintiffs' father alone, without his sons being made parties to the suit. The plaintiffs are those sons. In execution of those decrees the properties mentioned in Schedule A and B to the plaint were put up for sale. The plaintiffs' father, admittedly, had a half-share in these properties, his larger share being due to the fact of his having been given in adoption to his uncle. But, under Hindu law, his sons were joint with him in regard to that half share. Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 were the auction-purchasers, and Defendant No. 10 now holds the rights of Defendant No. 9.2. The plaintiffs sued to recover their separate share by partition in those sold properties on the ground that only the share of their father, Pandurang, actually passed to the auction-pur...
Ganesh Apparao Vs. Gurnath Yeshvant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1188
Madgavkar, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiff-respondent claiming to be adopted by Krishnabai, widow of Yelgurd, for a half share in the joint family property of which Yelgurd and his brother Ganesh, defendant-appellant, were co-parceners. The respondent had set up a partition between Yelgurd and the appellant, but it was held not proved in both the lower Courts.2. In the trial Court no authority by Yelgurd in his life-time to his widow to adopt the respondent was set up, and the trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Yadao v. Namdev (1921) L.R. 48 IndAp 513 did not overrule the decision of this Court in Shivbasappa v. Nilava : AIR1923Bom17 .3. The lower appellate Court, however, took a different view of the law. It distinguished the last case on the ground that the last co-parcener there had died before the adoption, and held that, although the estate was not vested in Krishnabai, her adoption of the respondent was va...
Bala Anna Gurav Vs. Akubai Babu Gurav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1254
Faweett, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the adoption of the plaintiff-appellant Bala by Tanubai, widow of Anna Gurav, entitles him to a share in the joint family property of Anna and his predeceased brother Babu.2. These two brothers formed a joint Hindu family. Babu died on October 22, 1918, leaving a widow Akubai enceinte. Anna died on November 4, 1918, leaving a widow Tanubai. On February 27, 1919, Anna's widow Tanubai adopted her brother, the plaintiff-appellant, without the consent of Babu'a widow Akubai, who gave birth, on April 1, 1919, to Krishna, defendant-respondent No. 1. The appellant sued Krishna for the joint property, alleging that the family was divided in status before Anna's death and that Anna had given Tanubai authority to adopt. Krishna died pendentelite and is represented byhis natural mother Akubai. Defendants-respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were tenants.3. The lower Courts held, and, in our opinion, rightly, that the family was not divided in status and th...
Moru Narushet Gujar Vs. Gangabai Ramchandra Lilachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1325
Shah, J.1. The facts, which have given rise to this appeal, are briefly these :-The plaintiffs sued the defendants in this case in 1912 to recover possession of Section No, 87, pot No. 1, or such portion thereof, as they may be found entitled to, with mesne profits ; or in the alternative, for redemption of certain mortgages referred to in the plaint. On March 26, the following decree was passed by the trial Court:-Plaintiff to pay into Court the amount) due to defendant) No. 2 Rs. 420 within six months of this ditto. On such payment they are to recover Section No. 87, pot No. 1, in suit. In case of default they shall be debarrad from all right to redeem the property. The usual preliminary decree for redemption to be drawn up with the necessary changes as indicated.2. Defendant No. 2 appealed to the District Court of Thana. That appeal was allowed, the decree of the trial Court was reversed, and the plaintiffs' suit was dismissed with all costs on the plaintiffs by the Assistant Judge ...
Annada Prashad Das Vs. Ambica Prashad Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1399
Viscount Haldane, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Calcutta, dated June 29, 1923, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of the 24 Parganas, dated February 2, 1921, who dismissed the suit. The question was whether the appellant had acquired a title to certain property by adverse possession. The property consists of what has been called the three-storied portion of a house in Ram Kamal Mukherjee's Street in Calcutta, The house belonged to one Digambar Das, who died in 1888, leaving a will. The appellant is his eldest son, the first respondent is his younger son, and the second respondent is the appellant's mother. The question is, What was the state of the title under the will? The relevant words are these :-My elder wife shall have the right of residence for the term of her natural life in the three-storied portion and my younger wife in the two-storied portion of my house No. 35, Ram Kamal Mukherjee's Street. I direct my executor to pay into the hand...
Moru Narushet Gujar and ors. Vs. Gangabai Ramchandra Lilachand and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom32
Shah, J.1. The facts, which have given. rise to this appeal, are briefly these : The plaintiffs sued the defendants in this case in 1912 to recover possession of S. No. 87, plot No. 1, or such portion thereof, as they may be found entitled to, with mesne profits ; or, in the alternative, for redemption of certain mortgages referred to in the plaint. On. March 26, the following decree was passed by the trial Court:Plaintiff to pay into Court the amount due to Defandant No. 2 Rs. 420 within six months, of this date. On such payment they are to recover S. No. 87, plot No. 1, in suit. In cash of default they shall be debarred from all right to redeem the property, The usual preliminary decree for redemption to be drawn up with the necessary changes as indicated.2. Defendant No. 2 appealed to the District Court of Thana. That appeal was allowed, the decree of the trial Court was reversed, and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with all costs on the plaintiffs by the Assistant Judge who hear...
Emperor Vs. Jorabhai Kisanbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1051; 97Ind.Cas.805
Fawcett, J.1. In this case a Sub-Inspector of Police was convicted of framing an incorrect record as a public servant under Section 218, fabricating false evidence under Section 193, using such fabricated evidence under Section 196, and forgery under Section 465, Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment for each of those offences and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 also under Section 218, Indian Penal Code, in default to serve a further term of six months' rigorous imprisonment. The Sessions Judge of Surat ordered the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently. An appeal was made to this Court, and a Division Bench, consisting of the Chief Justice and Shah J., confirmed the convictions and sentences and dismissed the appeal on April 7, 1926. After the judgment had been delivered, the Government Pleader applied orally to the Court to have notice issued to the accused to show cause why his sentences should not be enhanced, and this application was granted. We h...
Emperor Vs. Nana Ramji Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom545a
Fawcett, J.1. There is no doubt that the order passed by the Special Magistrate, First Glass, 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 P.C. 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 ho gives the security to the Court or Magistrate who made the order requiring it. Therefore, strictly speaking, no farther 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. 8524, dated ...
Emperor Vs. Shivabhai Becharbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1013
Fawcett, J.1. The appellant, Shivabhai, has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of Kaira of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and abduction in order to murder under Section 364, Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced for the first offence to transportation for life, and for the second to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, the two sentences to run concurrently. The Judge concurred with three out of the four assessors in convicting him. The alleged murder was of one Naran, a Patidar, living in Mahommadpura, a village about one mile from the railway station of Boriavi. He lived with his mother, Bai Lala, his wife, and two little sons, and was about twenty-five years old. The prosecution case is that, early on the morning of October 10 last, the accused Shivabhai, who is also a Patidar, living in the same village, went to Naran's house and inquired whether he was ready to go. Naran said that he would shortly come, and after taking his meal went to Boriavi station. The accuse...
Shravan Shahasing Patil Vs. Fattu Valad Saydu Musalman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-15-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1357
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. There are two points in this second appeal. The first one is a point of procedure, namely, that the plaintiff ought not to have been allowed to make a case of adverse possession, seeing that it was not pleaded, nor was there any express issue about it. But it is clear that the point was expressly raised and argued in the trial Court, and, so far as we can see, without objection. No objection was taken to it in the memorandum of appeal to the lower appellate Court. The point was again argued there apparently without any objection. So, too, in the memorandum of appeal to us there is no point taken that it was not permissible to the plaintiff to raise the point of adverse possession. We are, accordingly, of opinion that the defendant-appellants have suffered no hardship in this respect, and that it is too late now to raise this particular point.2. The next point relied upon by the appellants is one of law, namely, that it is not shown that the plaintiff obtain...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »