Mumbai Court February 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.
Appaji Jijaji Vaidya Vs. Mohan Lal Raoji Gujar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom273
JudgementMadgavkar, J.1. The contest in this case is between defendant 1, purchaser from defendant 2, Mainabai, the widow of a predeceased son of the propositus Veerchand and the plaintiffs, the grandsons of Veerchand's brother Hemchand, joint, according to the finding of the trial Court, but separated from Veer chand, according to the finding of the lower appellate Court.2. The relationship between the parties is shown in the following genealogical tree. Panamchand | __________________________________________________ | | | Ksvalchand Veerchand Hemchand (deceased propositus) | | Ravji= ________________ Ramjnbai | | Gautam ____________________ (predeceased son) | | =Mainabai Mohanal Panalal (defendant 2) (plaintiff 1) (plaintiff 2)3. The question is whether the brother's grandsons are included in the compact series of heirs, or whether that series ends with the brother's son and the brother's grandsons succeed only as got-raja sapindas, in.which case in Western India they are clearly ex...
Emperor Vs. Kanchanlal Chunilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR585
Mirza, J.1. This is an application for revision of a conviction and sentence of the accused for an offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code by the Special Magistrate, First Class, Surat, confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge, Surat.2. The first ground urged is that the lower Courts wrongly threw the burden of malicious intention upon the accused. It appears from the judgments of the two lower Courts that from a consideration of the three writings complained of they came to the conclusion that the natural meaning to be attached to those writings was that they would be calculated to produce hatred and enmity between the two classes, viz., the Hindus and the Mahomedans. Having come to that conclusion they state that if the accused relies upon the want of malicious intention which would take his act out of the purview of this section it would be for him to show that such was not his intention. Where the articles can bear a meaning only that they are calculated to produce hat...
Shivaji Sheshgir Kulkarni Vs. Channava Kom Basangavda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom292; (1930)32BOMLR687
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff-respondent No. 1's suit is barred by limitation under Article 134 of the second schedule of the Indian Limitation Act. The trial Court held that it was, the lower appellate Court that it was not. Defendant No. 2 appeals.2. The suit is in respect of Survey No. 124. The original owner, Rudrappa, passed a simple mortgage of it and of another survey -No. 149 and other property in 1876 in favour of defendant No. 1 Robertson. The simple mortgage recited that in default of re-payment within three months, the mortgagee was to be let into possession and to remain in possession until the mortgage amount was fully repaid. It was not so paid within three months. In April 1878, Rudrappa passed a rajinama and kabuliyat in respect of the land in suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent's adoptive father, and in July 1878 the mortgagee obtained a decree for possession against the mortgagor Rudrappa, and in execution was placed in p...
Nagindas Sankalchand Vs. Bapalal Purshottam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom395; (1930)32BOMLR692
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the defendant-appellant is estopped from questioning the title of the plaintiff-respondent, as both the lower Courts have held.2. The title originally vested in three brothers one of whom, Chandulal, became insolvent. Prior to the insolvency the brothers had let the appellant into possession as a tenant. After the insolvency of Chandulal the three brothers passed a mortgage in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, and the appellant thereafter attorned to the respondent and paid him rent. The appellant brought the present suit in ejectment, the respondent set up an oral tenancy for the period in suit. Both the lower Courts held it not proved, but did not allow him to lead evidence questioning the respondent's title, on the ground that he was estopped. The defendant appeals.3. It is argued for the appellant that he is not estopped on two , grounds, firstly, because the mortgage by an insolvent was illegal under Section 28 of the Provin...
Kurvateppa Mahalingappa Kurvatti Vs. Ningayya Chnbasaya Patrimath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom299; (1930)32BOMLR626
Mirza, J.1. The facts relevant to this second appeal briefly-stated are as follows ;-One Chenmallaya was the original owner of four lands and a house. He died in 1910. One Basava was his daughter. She was married to one Murigeya. They had a son Chenbagaya who was adopted by Chenmallaya. The lands and the house were the property of Chenbasaya until his death on September 4, 1911. Chenbasaya left a widow Nagava. Nagava lived with Murigeya and Basava the natural parents of her deceased husband. They managed the property on her behalf. On March 23, 1912, Nagava executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 conveying to him the four lands and the house. Basava and Murigeya joined in the conveyance. The consideration mentioned in the sale deed was Rs. 1,500. It is found by both Courts that ah the date of the sale-deed Nagava was a minor. On November 13, 1921, the plaintiff was adopted by Nagava, and this suit was brought by him against defendant No. 1 the original purchaser, defendants N...
Ganpati Bala Dhobale Vs. Bhiku Sakhabam Ghodke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom297; (1930)32BOMLR683
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff-appellant's suit is barred by limitation, as both the lower Courts have held.2. The appellant sued to recover on a mortgage-bond in his favour dated July 12, 1908, passed by the defendant-respondent. The principal amount payable was Rs. 500 and the relevant clauses in the bond are as follows:-In the month of Shrawan every year, I shall repay Rs. 23 and in 1900 and in 1928 Shrawan I shall pay the last instalment of Kb, 25 and shall repay the entire amount in twenty years. I shall pay the first instalment on July 12, 1909. In case I fail to pay any instalment on the due date as above 1 shall pay interest at the rate of twelve per cent, per year on the instalment amount and if I do not pay any instalment on the due date then you should after waiting for a year from the date of such default and if I still fail to pay the amount of this instalment then without waiting for the due date you should recover the entire amount a...
Bhagvanpuri Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1516
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. [The judgment after dealing with the facts of the case proceeded.] Both the Courts in India have held that the said land was not so granted. There is no necessity to enquire into the history relating to the land in suit prior to 1854, for it was agreed at the hearing of the appeal that the abovementioned main question depends upon the construction of the said sanad of January, 10, 1854...2. A further point was taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant. It is of a technical nature and has no relation to the merits of the case. It was argued that the defendants were not the, proper parties to the suit and that no leave was asked for or obtained from the Court as required under Order I, Rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.3. It appears that the defendants were elected managers by the akhara at the Kumbh in Hardwar in 1915, and on May 9, 1915, a power-of-attorney was given by them to four persons, of whom Hardayalgirji was one, to act as their general at...
In Re: Shekhanmian Jehangirmian
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom178; (1930)32BOMLR582
Mirza, J.1. The applicant applies for revision of an order of the First Class Magistrate, Dhandhuka, ordering him to pay maintenance to the opponent at the rate of Rs. 12 per month from November 1, 1927. The opponent applied to the Magistrate on November 1, 1927, under the provisions of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an order for maintenance against the applicant, who, she alleged, was her husband. The applicant contended that he had divorced the opponent according to Mahomedan law in the year 1914 and that if there was any doubt with regard to the factum or validity of that divorce, he had divorced her in open Court by pronouncing the word 'talak' three times thereby indicating his intention that the talak was to take effect immediately and become irrevocable.2. The Magistrate has given no finding as to whether the alleged talak in '1914 had taken place. He considers that the alleged talak in 1914 as well as the talak pronounced in Court are immaterial having regard to...
Dahyabhai Mansukhram Shah Vs. Kanaiyalal Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom441; (1930)32BOMLR902
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The substantial question in this appeal is whether the document, Exhibit 3, was the will of one Vrijvallavdas Umedram, who died on October 3, 1925, or whether it was merely the draft of a will which in fact was never made. The date of the alleged will cannot be stated with any precision. The learned Judge thought that the age of the deceased in this instrument had been originally put as sixty one, but- was subsequently altered to sixty-five, He consequently infers that the original document was made in 1916, and that it was subsequently altered in 1920. That in fact part of it was made in or after 1920 appears from an apparent addition on the second page of the document which refers to a house purchased in February 1920. That addition has been translated 'and I have purchased at present other house bearing Municipal Census No...' The words 'at present' we are told should be more correctly translated as 'recently.' That then is as far as we can get as to the...
Emperor Vs. Keshavji Madhavji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR562
Broomfield, J.1. The accused in this case, who are alleged to be partners in the firm of Keshavji Madhavji, dealers in gunny bags, etc., have been convicted by the Presidency Magistrate, 6th Court, of an offence of cheating under Section 417 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of a sum of Rs. 2,000.2. The facts of the case are by no means clearly stated in the judgment of the learned Magistrate. They are set out as follows in the deposition of the complainant Chunilal, who is also a merchant dealing in gunny bags. He states that he had dealings with the accused's firm to a considerable amount up to September 9, 1928, on which date the account was closed and nothing remained due to the accused. On September 18, 1928, accused No. 1 came to the complainant and said that he required a loan of Rs. 500, which would be repaid on the following day. The complainant gave him the money. On the following day, that is, September 19, accused No. 2 and accused No. 3 came to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »