Mumbai Court December 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.
Fatimabibi Mahomed Pirjade Vs. ShamsuddIn Hasan Saiba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR618
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the appellants' application for the drawing up of the decree was barred by limitation.2. The plaintiffs sued on an installment bond passed by defendant No. 1 in favour of the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 7. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 2 to 7 concluding as follows: 'The decree should be drawn up after the several claimants produce succession certificates and apply for the drawing up of the decree.' This judgment was passed on June 10, 1921. In 1923, the plaintiffs applied, but without certificates. On June 9, 1924, they again applied. That application was kept on the file, and lastly the plaintiffs applied in 1925 and obtained a succession certificate and thereafter asked for a decree to be drawn up. The defendants contended that this application was barred by limitation. The trial Court held that the application was filed in the suit and the Indi...
Kuppa Krishna Hegde Vs. Mhasti Goli Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR633
Patkar, J.1. The question involved in this second appeal is whether the transaction embodied in Ex. 14 is a mortgage or a sale with a condition of re-purchase.2. On April 13, 1910, the original owner of the land Narsing Hegde sold it for Rs. 500 to one Vasudev Ram Bhat by Ex. 14. In the sale deed there was a clause which enabled the vendor and his heirs to have the land reconvened within twenty years on payment of Rs, 500. On the same day the vendee leased the lands to the vendor by mulgeni or permanent lease, Ex, 37, the rent fixed being ten mangis of rice and the assessment Rs. 14 being payable by the vendor. On August 14, 1913, Vasudev sold the property to one Manjaya Naik under whom the defendants claim, In May 1914, the vendor Narsing died, and the present suit is brought by his heirs under Section 15D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act to take accounts of the mortgage on the allegation that the transaction evidenced by Exb. 14 was a mortgage by conditional sale.3. The lear...
Vyankatesh Shivrram Gokhale Vs. Krishna Bal Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR613
Madgavkar, J.1. The plaintiffs-respondents claimed a declaration against the defendant-appellant that they were permanent tenants in the khoti village in suit. The defendant appellant alleged that they wore annual tenants and raised the plea of res judicata by reason of the decree in civil suit No. 478 of 1921 and appeal No. 280 of 1922. Both the lower Courts decreed the claim. The defendant appeals.2. The two questions in appeal are, firstly, whether the present suit is barred by the decision in the previous suit, and, secondly, whether the plaintiffs-respondents have proved that they are permanent tenants.3. On the first point the facts and the causes of the former litigation are pertinent. The landlord, the present defendant-appellant was the plaintiff. He sued the present plaintiffs-respondents to recover possession with mesne profits of the lands now in suit claiming that they were his own lands and the defendants were annual tenants. He relied on a rent-note of 1913. The tenants,...
Dattatraya Govind Shaligram Vs. Gopal Sakharam Pandhare
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR624
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the plaint property situate at Bhamburda revision survey No. 268, pot hissa No. 1, on the allegations that the plaintiff was entitled to six annas share in the land, and that defendant No. 1 was entitled to the remaining ten annas share, that in the year 1894 the plaintiff leased the land to the defendant on twenty years' lease and the lease having expired in the year 1914 plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the land. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that defendant No. 1 was his tenant and the other defendants were the sub-tenants of defendant No. 1 or claiming through him.2. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement admitted the correctness of the allegation made by the plaintiff in the plaint. Some of the defendants, however, stated that they did not claim through defendant No. 1 and claimed in their own right. The other defendants did not put in any written statement and some of the defendants state...
Bhaichand Saganchand Gujar Vs. Krishnaji Vithal Malge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR611
Madgavkar, J.1. In suit No. 20 of 1920 a decree was passed against the opponent, a minor, for Rs. 162. In execution of this decree Survey No. 361 was attached in darkhast No. 423 of 1925 and was sold subject to a mortgage on September 19, 1925, and was purchased by the petitioner a third party, In June 1926, the opponent applied to set aside the sale. He failed to produce the five per cent, deposit and that application was rejected. In 1928, he gave the present application to set aside the sale, on the ground that while the executing Court had ordered the sale of such portion of the property as would be sufficient to satisfy the decree, the Collector had put up to sale the whole survey number and realised Rs. 7,600. The trial Court held that the application was not maintainable under Order XXI, Rule 89 or 90, and was not in time, but that as the sale had been not merely of a sufficient part of the property to satisfy the decree but was of the whole property, the sale was in contraventi...
Rangildas Vithaldas Vs. Burjorji D. Lowji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1930
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR615
Mirza, J.1. [His Lordship after stating facts as above proceeded:] Defendant No. 2 has not appeared. Mr. Jassoobhoy of the firm of Messrs. Purnanandand Jassoobhoy has appeared as amicus curiae and pointed out that the service of the notice is not proper. He has stated before me that he has not seen defendant No. 2 since the decree was passed against him and that he took inspection of the deed of assignment under instructions given to him by an agent of defendant No. 2; that thereafter when he asked the agent for instructions as to whether he should accept the notice under Order XXI, Rule 16, the agent informed him that he had no instructions from his principal on that point and could not authorise the attorneys to accept service of the notice.2. Rule 309 of our High Court Rules provides that notice under Order XXI, Rule 16, should be served in accordance with form No. 43 appended to the rules. Under form No. 43 the notice is addressed to the party personally and he is required to appea...
Apparao Baburao Shinde Vs. Vithal Govind Padhye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR608
Madgavkar. J,1. This is an application by Apparao the brother of the plaintiff, against the order of the Subordinate Judge, adding him, on the defendant's application, as a party. [After setting out the facts his Lordship proceeded.]2. It is argued for the petitioner that it would be unjust to add him as a party at this stage and that the Courts had no jurisdiction,--the trial Court because this Court's order on remand did not expressly so authorise, this Court because Apparao was not a party in the lower Courts; and unjust because he not being a party could not adduce evidence to prove the nature of the deed and would now be bound by the decree though he had no opportunity of contesting the suit. Lastly, he cannot be added by reason of the finding on issue 7 that he was not a necessary party.3. Order XLI, Rule 20, Civil Procedure Code, has no application. It is not this Court which adds him as a party but the trial Court. The trial Court can do so under Order I, Rule 10, Civil Procedu...
Raichand Dhanji Vs. Jivraj Bhavanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1372
Wadia, J.1. One Ratansi Velji died in Bombay in or about the year 1910 leaving him surviving Champubai, the widow of his predeceased son Bhawanji, Jivraj, son of Bhawanji, being defendant No. 1 herein, and one Khetbai daughter of Bhawanji, who has been sometimes referred to as Benbai. Champubai died on or about July 17, 1912. Khetbai was married to the plaintiff in or about the year 1920 and she died childless in the year 1922. Defendant No. 3 is the wife of defendant No. 1 in suit. Ratansi left a will dated July 30, 1910, of which he appointed one Devraj Tokersey, defendant No. 2, and the said Champubai as the executor and executrix thereof. Devraj Tokersey died in or about the year 191-2. On the death of Ratansi his daughter-in-law Champubai entered into possession and management of Ratansi's estate without obtaining probate of the will or any representation to the said estate. On the death of Champubai in the year 1912 defendant No. 2 as the sole surviving executor of the will of Ra...
In Re: Damodar Bapuji Padval
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR311
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application for transferring the case from the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, fifth Court, Dadar, to any other Court. The appellant in this case is being prosecuted on a charge of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code in the Dadar Court. The only reason why we sent for the record in this case is that the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate, to whom application for transfer was made, had sent for a report from the learned Magistrate of the Dadar Court and a copy of that report had not been supplied to the applicant, and we thought it desirable that the practice which prevails in the High Court in applications for transfer of furnishing the applicant with a copy of any report which the Court may receive from the subordinate Court from which it is sought to transfer the ease should be followed in the Chief Presidency Magistrate's Court. The report in question has now been furnished to the applicant.2. On the merits, I see no ground wha...
Emperor Vs. Jamshedji Naserwanji Modi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1930
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR309
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. In this case the accused is charged with an offence under Section 41(a) of the Indian Factories Act (XII of 1911). The allegation is that he is the occupier of the factory in question, the Soona Printing Press, and that he employed a person there for more than eleven hours in a day and more than sixty hours in a week, contrary to the provisions of Sections 28 and 27 of the Act. The learned Presidency Magistrate, Third Court, acquitted him and the Government appeal. 2. In his written statement the accused says he is the owner of the press, but that he knows nothing about the management of the press, the whole conduct of which is left to his manager Mr. Mistry. Mr. Mistry went into the witness-box and admitted that he was the manager of the press and did everything in connection with the press. The question for our consideration is whether in those circumstances the accused is liable. Section 41 of the Indian Factories Act provides that if in any factory certain o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »