Mumbai Court November 1928 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.
Ramchandra Genuji Thosar Vs. Shripati Sukaji Gade and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.252
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for specific performance of a contract of sale or in the alternative to recover Rs. l,550 as damages. The learned Subordinate Judge, on December 22, 1923, held that the contract sued upon was for a sum of Rs. 7,000, and, therefore, he had no jurisdiction to try the suit, and ordered the plaint to be returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff presented the plaint in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge on January 3, 1924. The First Class Subordinate Judge called upon the plaintiff to pay the deficit Court fees and granted time till January 10, 1924, and on that day the plaint was rejected with costs as the deficit Court-fees were not paid. On January 23, 1924, the plaintiff, through the same , Pleader who had filed the plaint in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court, filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1924 against the order dated December 22,1923, returning the plaint for presentation to the proper Court. The District Court...
Durga Bai Vs. Saraswati Bai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1928
Reported in: 118Ind.Cas.796
Fawcett, J.1. This suit relates to a diamond, which is of some size and weight. Th(r) plaintiff Durgabai is the wife of Nandlal Haribux, a Marwari residing in Bombay. It is alleged that this diamond belonged to her, being presented to her by her father-in-law, or mother-in-law at the time of her marriage in 1905, and that accordingly it was her stridhan property. The plaint alleges that some time in August or September 1922 she handed a ring, in which this diamond was set, with some other ornaments to her husband, who in turn entrusted them to one Durgadutt, Shrial Gondka, a broker in jewellery and precious stones. There is some difference between the terms stated in para. 3 of the plaint as those on which this delivery to Durgadutt was made, and the evidence which plaintiff and her husband have given in Court. According to para. 3 of the plaint, these ornaments were given by the plaintiff to her husband with a view to selling the same on account and on behalf of the plaintiff, and her...
Emperor Vs. Thavarmal Rupchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR158
Mirza, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay from an acquittal of the accused by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, on a charge of keeping a common gaming house under Section 4(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, IV of 1887.2. The main points for consideration in this appeal are :-(1) Whether the warrant under which the accused was arrested was legal;(2) Whether the articles seized from the accused's room were instruments of gaming; and(3) Whether the business the accused was conducting in the place raided was gaming.3. The learned Magistrate has found that the warrant of arrest was illegal and that the business in which the accused was engaged was not of a wagering nature. It can also be gathered from the judgment that the Magistrate was of opinion that the prosecution had failed to prove that any of the books or articles seized from the accused's room or person were instruments of gaming.4. The objection taken on behalf of the accused to the warrant is tha...
Annamalai Chetty Vs. Subramanian Chetty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR280
Buckmaster, J.1. The appellant claims that he, his brother the first respondent, and his brothers' two minor sons who are the second and third respondents, together form a joint and undivided family governed by the Mitakshara law as administered in Madras, and consequently that a half share of a dwelling house and certain other property in the possession of the first respondent are joint estate. That the family is a joint family and that it still remains undivided is not in dispute; the real question is whether there exists any joint property in which the appellant would be entitled to share. The appellant and the first respondent are the sons of one Vairavan Chetty, who is stated in the evidence to have died in 1883, but is found by the Court to have died in 1886; the statement in the evidence may be a misprint, or it may be a misunderstanding-1886 appears to have been accepted as the date of his death. Apart from the two brothers the father left him surviving a widow and two daughter...
Balangowda Bhimangowda Vs. Gadigeppa Bhimappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR340; 118Ind.Cas.698
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs-respondents can set up estoppel against the minor Bhimappa on the ground that he bad represented himself to them as a major when he with the widow Adiveva passed the sale-deed in their favour. The plaintiff respondent claimed on the strength of this sale-deed and the defendants-appellants on the strength of an award filed as a decree passed subsequently, when Bhimappa was admittedly a major. Both the lower Courts found that on the date of the sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent Bhimappa was a minor, but agreed that he was estopped from questioning the sale, and, therefore, decreed the claim. Defendant No. 1 appeals.2. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the view of this Court, differing from the other High Courts, that an estoppel can be pleaded by a minor must now be held to be overruled on the strength of the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the very recent case of Sadiq ...
Nadirshaw Jamshedji Mody Vs. Purshottamdas Ganpatdas Gajjar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR320; 118Ind.Cas.694
Patkar, J.1. [His Lordship, after setting out the facts as above, proceeded:] The lower Court held that the receiver had no right to present the present darkhast as the attachment before judgment in Suit No. 1050 of 1918 was subsisting, and that the receiver as an officer of the Court was bound to take notice of this order for attachment. Secondly, the lower Court held that, if the receiver had a right to execute the decree, the application for execution would be barred by limitation as the Darkhast No. 29 of 1924 was beyond time on the ground that the receiver could not take advantage of the applications filed by Nensukh in the years 1919 and 1922 as he had no right to apply on account of the appointment of the appellant as the receiver on July 19, 1921. On these grounds the lower Court dismissed the application for execution.2. On appeal before us two additional points have been taken on behalf of the respondent, first, that the receiver was appointed pendente lite in Suit No. 2232 o...
Shankar Mahadev Jadhav Vs. Bhikaji Ramchandra Ghanekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR129
Baker, J.1. This appeal, which comes from the Ratnagiri District, involves questions of some difficulty. There were 138 defendants, but fortunately we are not concerned with all of them in appeal. The facts are that defendant No. 4's father originally owned eight annas' share in the khoti village of Pan-hale, the other eight annas belonging to the family of Jadhav, In 1861 defendant No. 4's father sold that share to certain members of the plaintiff's family, the Jadhavs, and on the same day by a reconveyance he purchased back four annas out of it, the net result being the sale of a four annas, or half his share, to the Jadhavs. In 1894 certain members of the Jadhav family mortgaged this four annas' share in the khoti to one Ghanekar by Exhibit 144, The khoti share was undivided-I use that expression in preference to the word joint, because the plaintiff and his family are Hindus, Marathas probably, and defendant No. 4 is a Mussulman-but the respective shares were not divided between th...
Mahomed Roshan Sheikh Alli Kaskar Vs. Gulam Mohiddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR206; 118Ind.Cas.791
Patkar, J.1. In this case the decree-holder made an application for the arrest and imprisonment of the judgment-debtor No. 5. The learned First Class Subordinate Judge refused the prayer on the ground that the judgment-debtor No. 5 had been adjudged an insolvent and could not, therefore, be arrested. Under the old Section 16 of Act III of 1907, no creditor to whom the insolvent is indebted in respect of any debt provable under the Act shall, during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings, have any remedy against the property or person of the insolvent in respect of the debt. Under Section 28(2) of the present Act of 1920 the creditor shall not have any remedy during the insolvency proceedings against the property of the insolvent and a new Section 31 has been enacted under which the insolvent, in respect of whom an order of adjudication has been made, has to apply to the Court for protection, and the Court may, on such application, make an order for the protection of the insolvent f...
Parashram Yeshvantshet Alwe Vs. Lakshmibai Babaji Samant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1928
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR229
Baker, J.1. The facts of this appeal are set out at length in the judgments of the Courts below, and since the appeal turns entirely on two points of law, I do not think it is necessary to repeat them at length. The plaintiff Lakshmibai sues as the heir of her brother Tukaram to redeem the property described in the plaint from the mortgage of the defendants. The property priginally belonged to her father Govind, who mortgaged it in 1897 with the father of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. After her father's death his heir was Tukaram, who was of unsound mind, and his mother Annapurnabai managed his affairs. On his behalf she executed a second mortgage in 1902 in favour of defendant No. 1, and in 1907 she executed two permanent leases of a part of the property mortgaged in favour of the defendants. The defendants contended that both the mortgages must be redeemed, that the suit was bad for misjoinder of causes of action, that the rent notes were executed for the improvement of the property and fo...
Shankar Mahadev Jadhav Vs. Bhikaji Ramchadra Ghanekar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1928
Reported in: 116Ind.Cas.225
Baker, J.1. This appeal, which comes from the Ratnagiri District, involves questions of some difficulty! There were this defendants, but fortunately we are not concerned with all of them in appeal. The facts are that defendant No. 4's father originally owned eight annas share in the khoti village of Panhale, the other eight annas belonging to the family of Jadhav. In 1861 defendant No. 4's father sold that share to certain members of the plaintiff's family, the Jadhavs, and on the same day by a reconveyance he purchased back four annas out of it, the net result being the sale of a four annas or half his share, to the Jadhavs. In 1894 certain members of the Jadhav family mortgaged this four annas share in the khuti to one Ghanekar by Ex. 144. The khoti share was undivided--I use that expression in preference to the word joint, because the plaintiff and his family are Hindus, Marathas probably, and defendant No. 4 is a Mussulman--but the respective shares were not divided between the par...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »