Mumbai Court August 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.
Abdulrahim Funumulla Vs. Sarafalli Mahamadalli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1596; 114Ind.Cas.374
Patkar, J.1. The land in suit belonged to the defendant No. l's father, Funumulla, who leased it to the plaintiff on April 2, 1892, for a period of twenty-five years up to the last day of Falgun, Shake 1839, corresponding to April 11, 1918. Defendant No. 1 mortgaged the land to defendant No. 2 on January 23, 1922. The plaintiff alleged an oral agreement between him and the defendant No. 1 by which he secured a lease for fifty-one years on a rental of Rs, 300. Plaintiff, therefore, brought this suit for specific performance of the oral agreement for a lease for fifty-one years, and in the alternative for a declaration that he was entitled to remain in possession so long as he pleased on the payment of Rs. 100 as rent. Both the Courts have found that the oral agreement with regard to the lease of fifty-one years is not proved The only question arising in these appeal is as to the construction of the lease, Exhibit 67. It is urged on behalf of the defendant that the lease is only for a pe...
Hirabharthi Jamnabharthi Vs. Bai Javer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1555; 113Ind.Cas.406
Patkar, J.1. The question in this case is as regards the validity of the adoption of defendant No. 1 by Dahi, the junior widow of one Jamnabharthi who died in March 1921 leaving an infant son, Purshottamgir, and two widows, Javer (senior) and Dahi (junior) On February 20, ln21, he left a will authorizing Dabi to make an adoption after the death of his son Purshottamgir. Purshottamgir died in August 1921, and on September 13, Bai Dahi adopted defendant No. 1. The senior widow Javer has brought this suit for a declaration that defendant No. 1 is not the adopted son of her husband Jamnabharthi.2. Before the Subordinate Judge the defendants set up the custom of adoption of a chela by the Mathadhipati and the custom of the adoption of a chela by a widow if authorized by the Mathadhipati. The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that Gharbhari Qosais of Charotar did not countenance the right by birth of their sons in the ancestral property, and that there was no right of the sons...
In Re: Manchersha Pestonji Danania
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1566; 113Ind.Cas.402
Rangnekar, J.1. This is a petition for letters of administration of the property and credits of one Dorabji Pestonji Damania who died intestate in Bombay on or about April 7, 1928. The said deceased left him surviving as the only next-of-kin the petitioner, his brother, his widow Soonabai, and four sisters. The petition was declared by the brother on June 1. In para 4 of the petition it was stated that the said Soonabai, the widow of the deceased, had by her letter of renunciation dated May 26, 1928, renounced her prior right to the letters of administration of the property and credits of the deceased. The letter by the said Soonabai was annexed to the petition, but it was not verified.2. It appears that on June 6, 1928, Messrs. Ardeshir, Hormusji and Dinshaw for the said Soonabai informed the petitioner's attorneys stating that their client the said Soonabai withdrew her renunciation and consent, and that the petitioner should not proceed any further with his petition. They further st...
Kapurji Magniram Vs. Pannaji Devichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1560; 113Ind.Cas.341
Fawcett, J.1. The first point that I shall deal with is the legal point, because if it is decided in favour of the defendant's contentions then clearly it would be unnecessary to go into the dispute between the parties as to the accounts. It is conceded that there was an arrangement come to between the two firms, viz., plaintiffs' firm by name Kapurji Magnirain and the other firm Devaji Narshingji, and that the joint concern was known as Devaji Kapurji. But it is denied by the plaintiffs that the business in suit was business of that joint concern; and in the plaintiffs' counter-statement (Exhibit 37) it is stated that the connection between the two firms was merely a sort of pooling arrangement, under which the two shops were each to transact business and to render an account of that business to the other firm, so that the profits and losses resulting from such business would be divided between the two. Very little evidence has been given as to the exact arrangement between the two fi...
Kondi Ravji Fadtare Vs. Chunilal Rupchand Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1928
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR1539; 113Ind.Cas.229
Fawcett Ag. C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to obtain a declaration that the decree obtained on an award filed in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona was unauthorized, null and void.2. The main ground on which he asked for this relief was that there never was a reference to arbitration with his knowledge or consent, that he knew nothing about the alleged arbitration, and that the award was, in fact, a forged document, and, therefore, null and void. He admitted that he made his thumb impressions on some papers, so that there might be those thumb-impressions on documents connected with this alleged arbitration and what purports to be his application to file the award; but he says that he is an illiterate agriculturist and really made such thumb-impressions on papers delivered to his pleader in connection with a suit that he had brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Saswad.3. The defendant contended that all these allegations about the fraudulent natu...
In Re: Shanker Tulshiram Navle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1928
Reported in: AIR1928Bom530; (1928)30BOMLR1435; 113Ind.Cas.70
Patkar, J.1. The question in this case is whether the trial of accused No. 1 for adultery, and accused No. 2 for abetment, is barred by the result of a previous prosecution in which accused No. 1 was acquitted of adultery with the same woman. The previous trial was held in respect of offences under Sections 497 and 498, Indian Penal Code, committed in Nana's Peth within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Bench Magistrates. The Bench Magistrates in their judgment state : 'The offence under Section 497 alleged to have been committed in Kamatipura only remains to be dealt with. This locality is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court. 'If the acquittal of the accused by the Bench Magistrates be confined to the offence in Nana's Peth, there was no trial of the accused with regard to the charge of adultery in Kamatipura, If, on the other baud, the judgment be read as covering the offence of adultery in Kamatipura, it was obviously a judgment by a Court which had no jurisdiction to try the of...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›