Mumbai Court July 1926 Judgments
Daji Ramji Patil Vs. Laxman Raoji Tage
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR122
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. We hold that the lower appellate Court has here erred in law in throwing the burden of proof upon the plaintiffs. The learned Assistant Judge quotes from Mulla's Hindu Law: 'Every Hindu family is presumed to be joint in food, worship and estate unless the contrary is proved. The burden of proof therefore lies upon him who alleges separation.' Accepting that proposition, the Judge in para. 7 of his judgment has held that 'the plaintiff's have not succeeded in showing that in 1894 Vaman was separate from his brothers Hari and Anant, and that consequently the land, Survey No. 17, belonged exclusively to him and after his death to his son, viz., their vendor Chintaman.'2. We think that the above proposition of law is stated far too widely or at any rate cannot be accepted without qualifications. In Ram Kishan Das v. Tunda Mal I.L.R. (1911) All. 677 it was held that there is no presumption that a Hindu family has any joint property, and that it is necessary to establ...
Tag this Judgment!Chanvirgavda Shivangavda Patil Vs. the District Magistrate, Dharwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom91; 100Ind.Cas.575
Lallubhai Shah, J.1. This is an appeal under the Indian Lunacy Act (IV of 1912).2. The District Magistrate of Dharwar made an application under Section 88 of the Act for an order for the payment of the cost of maintenance of the lunatic Shivangavda to the District Court of Dharwar against the father of the lunatic. It appears that a reception order was made by the District Magistrate with reference to Shivangavda under Section 14 of the Act on April 1, 1924, without any engagement by a relation to maintain him; and in consequence the lunatic was detained in an asylum. The amount of maintenance claimed related to a period of three months (from April 1 to June 30, 1924). In the petition the lunatic was stated to have been discharged on June 30, 1924, though this fact is disputed before us. The amount was claimed at the rate of Rs. 1-2-0 per day according to the scale fixed under Rule 18(ii) of the rules made under Section 91 of the Act on the basis that the father had a pension of Rs. 21...
Tag this Judgment!Sursingji Dajiraj Thakorsaheb Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1213
Fawcett, J.1. In this appeal the plaintiff-appellant seeks a reversal of the decree of the Joint Judge, Ahmedabad dismissing his suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The respondent has, however, filed cross-objections in regard to the finding of the Joint Judge in favour of the plaintiff on the merits. Therefore, the whole ease is now before us for decision.2. The first question is the point of limitation. The plaintiff is the Thakor of Utelia and owns certain villages as Talukdar, including the village of Hariala in the Matar Taluka of the Kaira District. In that village there is a group of lands, which has for a long time been known as ' Bhavsingji's Wanta.' The main facts about it are not disputed. These lands have, for a very large number of years, been shown in the village accounts as Wanta rent-free lands. On the other hand, in 1872-73, on a reference about them by the Revenue Authorities, Government held that these lands were improperly shown as alienated lands, n...
Tag this Judgment!Madhav Prabhakar Oka Vs. Balaji Govind Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom123; (1927)29BOMLR75
Shah, J.1. These are three appeals in execution. When a few facts are clearly realised, the point that arises is short and simple. It appears that in 1910 a decree was passed on a mortgage in favour of one Vishnu Vishvanath Oka against Govind Vishvanath Joshi and this was an instalment decree. There were certain attempts made by Vishnu to execute the decree with which we are not now concerned. Vishnu died on April 8, 1913. Darkhast No. 54 of 1920 was filed by his natural brother Balvant Kashinath Oka. The table of the family relationship is given in the judgment of the lower Court. That darkhast was sent to the Collector for execution on August 20, 1920. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, held, on April 27, 1922, that it was not competent to the applicant Balvant to proceed with the execution as other persons interested with him in the decree as coparceners after the death of Vishnu were not joined. According to the view taken by the Court at the date of the presentation of the da...
Tag this Judgment!Shravan Goba Mahajan Vs. Kashiram Devji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom384; (1927)29BOMLR115
Amberson Marten, C.J.1. [His Lordship first examined the question of fact and agreed with the trial Court in its conclusions that the sale-deed in suit was nominal and that it was obtained by defendant No. 1 by misrepresentation and next dealt with the law point as follows.-] That being then our finding on the question of fact, what is the position in law Now here it has been strongly urged upon us by counsel for the appellants that this is in effect a suit to set aside a document on the ground of fraud or undue influence within the moaning of the Indian Contract Act, Section 16, 17 or 18, and that as Dashrath is dead, the right to sue does not devolve on his personal representatives, as the relief given by Sections 19 and 19A must be confined to the actual party, who has been defrauded, or on whom the undue influence has been exercised. In support of that proposition, certain cases were cited which, I think, are all, or nearly all, distinguishable on this simple ground, viz., that the...
Tag this Judgment!Vallabhdas Narandas and Co. Vs. Keshavlal Himatlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1926
Reported in: AIR1927Bom428; (1927)29BOMLR660
Mirza, J.1. This is a chamber summons adjourned into Court, taken out by the applicants against the respondent for an order that the applicants be at liberty to execute an award dated May 9, 1924, filed in this Court on June 11, 1924, against the respondent as a partner in the firm of Keshavlal Himatlal. On the argument of the summons in chambers the respondent contended that the award was against an individual and not against a firm. In the alternative he contended that if the award can be construed as being against a firm he was not a partner in the firm and therefore not liable to be proceeded against in execution of the award against the firm. On those contentions I adjourned the summons into Court and ordered the trial of the following issues, viz.,(1). Whether the award herein is against the firm of Shet Keshavlal Himatlal and(2). If so, whether the respondent is a partner in the said firm ?2. The arbitration proceedings which led to the award seem to have been held under the rul...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhoddas Laldas Vs. Nanji Bhanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1180
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is a notice of motion before this appellate Court asking for a certain compromise referred to in para. 11 of the affidavit of Ranjit C. Raiji, filed on July 15, 1926, to be approved : and for two immoveable properties at Hornby Road and Colaba, forming part of the estate of the deceased Bai Mamubai, to be vested in the Receiver and to be conveyed to the appellants : and for a certain loan to be repaid : and for directions as to custody of certain securities on charity account: and for monthly disbursements out of the interest: and for an order that the Receiver may be allowed to settle and pay certain bills of costs.2. Prior to this notice of motion being actually taken out, an application was made, by the attorneys for the applicants, to me to fix a date for the hearing of the notice of motion. By two notes made by me, and subsequently communicated to the solicitors, dated July 15 and 20, I stated that it appeared to me that the applicants were applyi...
Tag this Judgment!Sobhagmal Gianmal Vs. Mukundchand Balia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1926
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR1376
Warrington, L.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the contract between the appellant and the respondent sought to be enforced in the suit was a wagering contract, and therefore, under the provisions of Section SO of the Indian Contract Act, void and incapable of being enforced.2. The respondent (the plaintiff in the suit) carries on business in Bombay as a merchant and agent on commission.3. The appellant (the defendant in the suit) is a merchant and at all material times resided in the Native State of Bhopal.4. During the years 1914 and 1917 the respondent acted in the transactions in question as commission agent for the appellant and what are known in Bombay on cutcha adatia terms, the appellant being his up-country constituent.5. There is no dispute that as regards cutcha adatia transactions the course of business and the relative positions of the parties are as follows :-When a cuicha adatia enters into transactions under instructions from, and on behalf of his up-country c...
Tag this Judgment!Azimunnisa Begum Vs. Sirdar Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1926
Reported in: (1927)29BOMLR434
Mirza, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts as above proceeded:] The plaintiff's case is that she was a minor at the date of her father's death being his youngest child and no citation was served on her, nor any gurdian ad litem appointed, when the proceedings for probate were instituted by the executors. It appears from the contents of the will that the youngest child of the testator was a girl and had not yet been named. There would be force in the plaintiff's contention if she were seeking to set aside the probate of the will on the ground that it was not the last will and testament of the deceased. In order that the probate of a will which is against the interest of the infant should be binding on the infant the citation if issued should be served upon a duly appointed guardian of the infant. The issue of a citation in such cases is discretionary and not obligatory. Want of citation will not by itself vitiate the probate: but in the absence of a citation duly served upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhoddas Laldas and ors. Vs. Nanji Bhanji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1926
Reported in: AIR1926Bom579
Marten, C.J.1. This is a notice of motion before this appellate Court asking for a certain compromise referred to in para. 11 of the affidavit of Ranjit C. Raiji, filed on July 15, 1926, to be approved; and for two immovable properties at Hornby Road and Colaba, forming part of the estate of the deceased Bai Mamubai, to be vested in the Receiver and to be conveyed to the appellants; and for a certain loan to be repaid; and for directions as to custody of certain securities on charity account; and for monthly disbursements out of the interest; and for an order that the Receiver may be allowed to settle and pay certain bills of costs. Prior to this notice of motion being actually taken out, an application was made, by the attorneys for the applicants, to me to fix a date for the hearing of the notice of motion. By two notes made by me, and subsequently communicated to the solicitors, dated July 15 and 20, I stated that it appeared to me that the applicants were applying to the wrong Cour...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »