Mumbai Court December 1929 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.
Mathuradas Tuljaram Vs. Mahadu Maruti Kavde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom238; (1930)32BOMLR320
Patkar, J.1. In this case the decree-holder made an application under Clause (2) of a 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act that the Collector should take possession of the property belonging to the deceased judgment-debtor and deal with the same for the benefit of the decree-holder for a period not exceeding seven years. Before the learned Subordinate Judge it was not contended that the income of the property was less than what was necessary for the support of the defendants' family, and therefore, the learned Subordinate Judge passed an order in favour of the decree-holder under Clause (2) of Section 22. On appeal, the learned Assistant Judge, relying on the decision in the case of Hirachand Motichand v. Hansabai I.L.R. (1922) 47 Bom. 527 held that the Court had no jurisdiction under Section 22 (2) of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act to direct the Collector to take possession of the immoveable property falling into the hands of the heirs of the judgment-debtor, and follo...
Nagardas Mathuradas Vs. N.V. Velmahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom249; (1930)32BOMLR454
Blackwell, J.1. This suit as originally framed was a suit to recover the sum of Rs. 3,841-10-0 upon the basis that the defendant employed the plaintiffs as his commission agents on pakki adat terms. Alternatively, the suit was for the price of goods sold and delivered. Counsel before us have agreed that the case has been fought out upon the footing of a suit for the price of goods sold and delivered. The defence was that the defendant had rightly rejected the goods, and there was a counter-claim for the sum of Rs. 835-12-2 for the expenses alleged to have been incurred by the defendant in respect of the goods in question. [After referring to the issues, His Lordship proceeded :]2. The learned Judge hold that the defendant rejected the goods, and that subsequent to that rejection by him his marks were put on the bags which were then taken from Chamar Godi to the Alexandra Docks. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that this was an exercise of ownership by the defendant over goods w...
Harry Kempson Gray Vs. Bhagu Mian
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR525
George Lowndes, J.1. The only question raised for determination in this appeal is as to the basis upon which mesne profits should be ascertained in respect of the wrongful possession of agricultural land.2. The appellants, who were the owners of an indigo factory, had for a number of years leased certain lands from the predecessors in title of the principal respondents, and had utilised the lands in growing indigo for the purposes of their factory. The lease having expired in or about November, 1919, the respondents became entitled to possession of the major portion of the lands. The appellants subsequently obtained a new lease of a small portion, which did not belong to the respondents, and refused to give up possession of the respondents' portion, alleging themselves to be occupancy tenants, The respondents sued to establish their title and were successful, a decree being passed in their favour for joint possession with the appellants and for mesne profits of an area of some 23 bigha...
Rai Pramatha Nath Mullick Bahadur Vs. the Secretary of State for India ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR522
George Lowndes, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, I of 1894. Certain lands of the appellant were required by Government for a public purpose. The usual formalities were gone through and awards were made by the Collector in eleven cases in which the appellant was concerned. At his request references were made to the Land Acquisition Judge, 24 Perganas, who slightly increased the Collector's awards. The appellant carried the matter to the High Court where a further and more substantial increase was allowed, and he has now appealed to His Majesty in Council. The appellant's grounds of appeal to the High Court and his objections to the High Court's decree were voluminous, but only one question has been submitted on his behalf to the judgment of this Board.2. It is contended that the measurements of four of the most valuable plots taken up, the compensation for which was fixed at Rs. 1,000 per cottah, are incorrect, and that the appellant has been de...
Emperor Vs. Atta Mohammad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR529
Viscount Sumner, J. 1. As this is a capital case, and as the conviction took place so long ago as February last, their Lordships think it best to give their reasons for the conclusion at Which they have arrived, without taking further time to put them into writing.2. The appellant's conviction and sentence having been confirmed on appeal, he applied to their Lordships last July for special leave to appeal. His petition was allowed, his point being in substance that he had been convicted without having had a fair opportunity of knowing what the charge was that he had to meet, and particularly of raising defences other than the one raised, or of relying on any circumstances which would have reduced the offence to a minor one. Under those circumstances their Lordships did what they rarely have occasion to do, and advised His Majesty in Council to grant special leave em abundanti cautela, so that it might be discussed at length whether he had in truth been deprived of so important an oppor...
Amiruddi Gazi Vs. Makhan Lal Chatterjee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR520
Buckmaster, J.1. The dispute out of which this appeal has arisen, has its immediate origin in the fact that the present appellants on May 8, 1915, obtained a decree against a man names Kedar Nath Ghose for payment of rent in respect of certain lands in Mouza Dudli, in Chakley Dhuliapur.2. The respondent No. 1, Makhan Lal Chatterjee, claimed that these lands were included in a purchase made by his father at an auction sale on February 25, 1907, and accordingly institution the proceedings which have culminated in this appeal against the appellants, and Kedar Nath Ghose claiming that the appellants had no interest in the lands and that he was entitled to rent from the tenant.3. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit; on appeal to the Additional District Judge this decree was set aside and the plaintiffs' claim granted, and an appeal from the District Judge to the High Court of Calcutta was dismissed, chiefly upon the ground that the question in issue was really one of fact upon which th...
Gangabai Baswantrao Desai Vs. Fakirgowda Somappagowda Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR368
Binod Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated September 15, 1925, reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dharwar dated June 25, 1923.2. The following pedigree will show the relationship of the parties to the litigation and their ancestors:-Dod-Baswantrao, d. 1893.|---------------------------------| | Somappagowda Baswantrao,| |--------------------- --------------------| | | |Nilapagowda. Fakirapagowda, | First wife, | Plaintiff No. 1. | Gangabai. | | Defendant No. 1.| | |---------------------------------- | ---------------| | | | | |Irbasapgowda. Bapusaheb. Chikkappa. Second Virupax. Shankargowda, (Plaintiff Nos. 2, wife, Defendant Defendant3 and 4.) Basawa. No. 3. No. 4.Defendant Alleged adoptedNo. 2. sons.3. Dod-Baswantrao died in 1893. He left two sons, Somappagowda (hereinafter referred to as Somappa) and Baswantrao. Dod-Baswantrao owned and possessed considerable watan land in the villages of Hallikeri and Annigeri, Bhad...
Gudivada Mangamma Vs. Maddi Mahalakshmanna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1929
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR517
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. The case turned upon whether the widow, whose heir the respondent is, took an absolute interest in certain properties of the husband or only a life estate. If the latter, the respondent had no right. The Subordinate Judge held that the widow had only a life estate. The High Court reversed. The losing parties then applied for leave to appeal to the King in Council, which was refused upon the ground that the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit was less than Rs. 10,000.2. The appellant now asks for special leave to appeal on the ground that the decision of the High Court was wrong in the respect that the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit was more than Rs. 10,000. The point arises in this way. Part of the property in question consisted of promissory notes. The promissory notes in the plaint were described as of their face value, and, so valued together with the other subjects in dispute, the amount of Rs. 10,000 cannot be reached, but if...
Balu Harshet Shetye Vs. Shrikishna Govind Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom224; (1930)32BOMLR185
Murphy, J.1. The common point involved in these two appeals A is whether they can be admitted, or not. No. 70 of 1929 arises from Appeal No. 384 of 1924 from an appellate decree and was decided by Madgavkar J. on the merits, who dismissed it. No. 85 of 1929 is similarly from Appeal No. 29 of 1928 from an appellate decree, and was also decided on the merits by the same Judge, who allowed it. The learned Judge has, in each of those cases, refused to give leave for an appeal under the Letters Patent.2. Two points have been taken by Mr. Thakor for the appellants, one being that leave was not necessary in these cases; and the second, that an appeal lies from the learned Judge's order refusing leave to appeal under the Letters Patent.3. There are three reported cases on the point. The first is a decision of this Court reported in Badruddin v. Sitaram : AIR1928Bom371 , and made on April 2, 1928. This case was decided by Fawcett and Mirza JJ. after the first amendment of Clause 15 of the Lette...
Babaji Daso Deshpande Vs. Jivaji Yeshvant Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom333; (1930)32BOMLR314
Murphy, J.1. This is an unusual case, being a suit for partition filed by an original member by birth, of the family whose property is sought to be divided, admittedly however given in adoption to another branch of the family, and so becoming a stranger to his family of birth. [After setting out the pedigree as above, his Lordship proceeded :]2. The family property has been classified into lots A. B. C. D. E.3. About lot 'A' there is no further dispute. It was not family property, but the stridhan of Dhondu's wife who, it has been held, gave it half and half to her son Daso, and her son given away in adoption Jivajee, and the finding that the will had been proved was accepted in this Court. Properties B and C have the same character, 'being ancestral, and have only been made into two lots because they comprise land in two villages, Khangaon and Kalloli. Property D includes four survey numbers in a third village, Durdundi, and property E comprises certain rights arising out of alienated...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »