Mumbai Court November 1930 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.
Shridhar Ramchandra MaraThe Vs. Lakshman Vinayak Bhave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR514
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 2 against the order of attachment of his decree of annual installments of Rs. 3,000 against the Guptes.2. In 1919, defendant No. 2-appellant Marathe mortgaged to defendant No, 1 Gupte for Rs. 16,000 certain land occupied by a factory and mill machinery. In 1921, defendant No. 1 Gupte sub-mortgaged the property--according to one party an undivided one-third, according to the other the whole--to the plaintiff for Rs. 10,000. Defendant No. 2 likewise mortgaged a small chawl. The plaintiff now sues both the defendants on the mortgage of 1921 and claims Rs. 16,000 as due from them, first by the sale of the mortgage properties, and the balance personally. Defendant No. 2 raised the plea of limitation, and the plaintiff has obtained an attachment before judgment of the decree above.3. It is urged for defendant No. 2-appellant that the Court has no power to attach before judgment property which is not the subject-matter of the mortgage, inasmu...
Abdulla Kazim Vs. Obaid Essa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR611
Mirza, J.1. This matter has been referred to me by the Prothonotary because of the refusal of Mr. J.P.Dastoor, the senior partner in Messrs. Dastoor and Co., attorneys of this Court, to pay a bill of Rs. 293-8-0 in respect of costs of certain de bene esse proceedings. An order was made for the examination of witnesses of both parties de bene esse. The order was originally applied for on behalf of the plaintiff in the suit. The defendants had objected to the order being made and had contended that the wit nesses should be examined before the Court at the hearing of the suit. When the Court overruled the objection and was about to make the order asked for, the defendants applied for and obtained leave to examine certain of their witnesses also de bene esse at the close of the examination of the plaintiff's witnesses.2. The de bene esse examination of the witnesses should ordinarily be held in Court and preferably before the Judge who is ultimately to hear and decide the suit. The Chamber...
Balkrishna Anant Hirlelcar Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom132
Beaumont, C.J. 1. In this case 11 accused were convicted Under Section 17(1), Criminal Law Amendment Act 14 of 1908, with being members of an unlawful association. Counsel for the accused in this application for revision takes three points. The first is that the evidence as to the accused being members of an unlawful association was wrongly admitted. The second point is that the accused had 310 knowledge that the association was an unlawful one, and the third point is that the Magistrate did not comply with the provisions of Section 342, Criminal P.C., in that he took a joint statement from all the accused and did not examine them separately.2. With regard to the first point, I am satisfied that there is nothing in that. I think the police evidence was rightly admitted and that the accused were members of the alleged unlawful association.3. The second point involves a consideration of the terms of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1908. Section 16 of that Act provides:If the Local Gove...
Zaverchand Khimchand Vs. Jesang Naran
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR499
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the defendant-respondent is entitled to payment from the plaintiffs-appellants. The defendant-respondent was the prior purchaser of an unrecognized portion of a bhag from the bhagdar, the consideration being a part of previous debts due on promissory notes. The appellants are subsequent purchasers of the entire bhag and sued for possession from the respondent. The trial Court held that the appellants had no notice of the sale in favour of the respondent and decreed the claim. In appeal by the defendant the lower appellate Court held that the plaintiffs had constructive notice and were not entitled to recover possession unless they paid into Court the amount of the consideration recited in the respondent's deed. The plaintiffs appeal.2. It is argued for the appellants that the alienation in favour of the respondent being not merely voidable but forbidden by the Bhagdari Act and void there was, strictly speaking, no equitable right t...
Navaj Bhavdu Patil Vs. Totaram Govind Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR503
Patkar, J.1. This is second appeal from the order of the District Judge confirming the order of the First Class Subordinate Judge directing rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code. [After stating the above-mentioned facts his Lordship proceeded: ]2. In second appeal it is contended, first, that Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code does not apply to the facts of the present case as no assets were held by the Court and there was only a notional receipt of the purchase-money by the Court Further, it is contended that the decree-holders in darkhasts Nos. 67, 68 and 69 did not apply before the Court passed the order giving the appellant leave to bid and allowing the purchase-money to be set off against the decretal amount. Lastly, it is urged that the sale should be set aside and a re-sale should be ordered.3. The preliminary question arising in the appeal is whether the order passed by the learned Subordinate Judge was an order passed under Section 47 of the Ci...
Chandraprasad Ramprasad Vs. Jinabharthi Narayanbharthi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR520
Patkar, J.1. In this case a scheme was framed by the District Court on April 19, 1921, in connection with the temple of Siddhanath Mahadev. An application was made by one of the plaintiffs under Clause (b) of the scheme of management that two persons should be removed from the membership of the temple committee, and that the scheme of management may be so modified as to take away from the Bawa the right of nominating a person of his choice in the temple committee and give the District Judge a right to so nominate, and that an honorary secretary be appointed to assist the present ex-officio secretary of the temple committee.2. Clauses 4, 5 and 28 of the scheme of administration are as follows:--4. A committee once properly constituted shall ordinarily exist for five years only. On the aforesaid period being over a new committee shall be appointed by the District Court, but the old committee shall be entitled to continue-the administration till the appointment of the new committee. 5. Th...
M.i. Kadri Vs. Khubmiya Mahomedmiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR546
Patkar, J.1. In this case an application was made by the committee appointed by Government to manage the Mussalman waki properties in the Ahmedabad city for the removal of the trustees of the mosque of Shah Kubh situated in the city. A scheme with regard to this religious institution was framed by the District Court in suit No. 11 of 1898, but the applicants were not parties to the original suit. Rules 1 and 6 of the scheme were as follows:--1. The defendants and their heirs shall during their good conduct be the trustees and managers of the Shah Kubh mosque and of the property belonging to the said mosque including the shops described in the plaint.6. These rules shall be subject to such modifications or additions as this Court may from time to time see fit to make.2. An application, No. 254 of 1913, was made on January 19, 1916, to make certain additions to the rules, and the District Judge made certain additions but declined to remove the trustees. In First Appeal No. 139 of 1916 Ba...
Chinubhai Bhikhabhai Vs. Bai Manekbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1930
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR609
Mirza, J.1. By a consent order dated March 7, 1930, this suit has been ordered to be placed on board for the trial of a preliminary issue, viz., whether the bequest of Rs. 20,001 for constructing a public building for Hindus on the testator's land at Pethapur contained in the will of the testator Mansukhlal Lallubhai dated January 16, 1922, is void,2. The clause of the will, relating to this bequest, is as follows:-Rs. 20,001 (rupees twenty thousand and one) a building for Hindus exclusively for general purposes to be erected on land which is bought at Pethapur.3. This bequest is disputed by defendant No. 1 who is the widow of the testator and the residuary legatee under the will. The Advocate General, on behalf of the alleged charity, has contended that the bequest is valid inasmuch as it discloses a charitable intention on the part of the testator. The amount is to be utilised by the executors for a building which is to be for the Hindu public. According to the Advocate General's con...
Chinubhai Bhikhabhai Vs. Bai Manekbai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1930
Reported in: 138Ind.Cas.326
Mirza, J.1. By a consent order dated March 7, 1930, this suit has been ordered-to be placed on board for the trial of a preliminary issue, viz, whether the bequest of Rs. 20,001 for constructing a public building for Hindus on the testator's land at Pethapur contained in the will of the testator Mansukhlal Lallubhai dated January 16, 1922, is void.2. The clause of the will, relating to this bequest, is as follows:Rs. 20,001 rupees twenty thousand and one) a building for Hindus exclusively for general purposes to be erected on land which is bought at Pethapur.3. This bequest is disputed by defendant No. 1 who is the widow of the testator and the residuary legatee under the will. The Advocate General, on behalf of the alleged charity, has contended that the bequest is valid inasmuch as it discloses a charitable intention on the part of the testator. The amount is to be utilised by the executors for a building which is to be for the Hindu public. According to the Advocate-General's conten...
Shivlal Bhurabhai Vora Vs. Bai Sankli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR490
Patkar, J.1. In this case, the plaintiff, the sister-in-law of the defendants, had certain disputes in connection with her husband's property which culminated in a family arrangement in the shape of an agreement by the defendants to pass an annuity bond in favour of the plaintiff for maintenance. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover Rs. 87-8-0 on the annuity bond dated October 13, 1924. The defendants contended that they were entitled to prove a contemporaneous oral agreement by which the plaintiff agreed not to receive maintenance if she did not behave well and assure the defendants that she continued chaste.2. The learned Subordinate Judge, relying on the decision in the case of Bhup Singh v. Lachman Kunwar (1904) ILR All. 321, held that such an oral agreement was not admissible in evidence.3. It is urged on behalf of the applicants that the agreement falls within proviso (3) of Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, The proviso runs as follows:--The existence of any separate o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »