Mumbai Court March 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.
Motilal Jadav Vs. Samal Bechar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom466
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. The actual question we have to decide in suit No. 221 of 1921 is whether the plaintiff Jadav Gopal is entitled to redeem three acres and twenty gunthas or thereabouts being part of the land comprised in the mortgage of June 9, 1S39, Exhibit 19, as against defendant No. 1, Samal Bechar.2. The litigation has had a most unfortunate history. This is the fifth Court to hear the dispute, and so far each Court has reversed the decision of its predecessor. The original mortgage comprised in addition to the three acres and twenty gunthas further land making in all seven acres and nine gunthas. But it is clearly found by the learned District Judge in appeal that there was in effect a partition over fifty years ago between the two branches of the family of the original mortgagee Vithal Ranchhod. The one branch represented now by defendant No. 1, Samal Bechar, took these three acres and twenty gunthas. The other branch represented now by defendants Nos. 2, 8 and 4 took...
John Agabeg Vertannes Vs. James Golder Robinson
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-21-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1522
Russell, J.1. The matter under appeal before their Lordships is a decree dated June 19, 1928, of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon, affirming a decree of the District Court of Insein, dated March 8, 1928. The last-mentioned decree dismissed, on a preliminary issue, a suit brought by the appellant to establish against the first respondent his title as absolute owner to a quarter of two-thirds (or an undivided one-sixth share) in certain lands. The appellant claimed to be entitled to such share as one of the four children of Sarkies Vertannes who had died intestate as to the land on May 18, 1897,2. The District Court dismissed the plaintiff's action on the ground that a judgment of this Board on appeal in an action to which the present appellant and first respondent were parties, had finally dealt with the question of the ownership of the said share. The High Court affirmed this dismissal on the same grounds.3. The said judgment of the Board was delivered on the occasion of an appe...
Emperor Vs. Dhanraj J. Parmar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR761
Broomfield, J.1. The applicant in this case has a license for the possession and storage of dangerous petroleum in Form B issued in accordance with Rule 3 of Chapter IV of Part II of the rules under the Indian Petroleum Act. He has been convicted and fined Rs. 50 under Section 15 (c) of the Act which renders penal the breach of any condition contained in a license granted under the Act. The license granted to the applicant is In this form. It is headed 'License to possess dangerous petroleum, otherwise than in bulk, in quantity exceeding forty gallons'. It then proceeds as follows :- License is hereby granted to Mr. I). T Parmar of Surat for the storage, In the storage shed at Dohad described below, of 1000 one thousand gallons of dangerous petroleum subject to the rules for, the storage of petroleum published in Notification No. 2572 dated May 18, 1909, and to the further conditions on the back of this license up to December 31, 1928.2. Then there follows a description of the storage ...
BadruddIn Abdul Rahim Mukhari Vs. Sitaram Vinayak Apte
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom401; (1930)32BOMLR933
Mirza, J.1. The appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal were the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 6 of 1926 brought against them by the respondent, the original plaintiff, in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, at Panvel. The plaintiff prayed that an account may be taken from the defendants of the income of a certain property which had been mortgaged by the grandfather of the plaintiff to one Ibrahim walad Badruddin Mukhari since deceased who was the grandfather of defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and the father of defendant No. 4. The plaintiff also prayed that the defendants may be ordered to give possession of the mortgaged property to him, or in the alternative, if for any reason the possession of the mortgaged property cannot now be given by the defendants to the plaintiff, the defendants may be ordered to pay to the plaintiff the market value of the property. The defendants by their written statement and a further supplemental written statement raised a conte...
Kanji Vishram Vs. Jivraj Dayal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom412; (1930)32BOMLR1009
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff obtained a decree against the firm of Kanji Khimji and Company by their partner the present applicant Kanji Vishram and two others Pragji Monji and Bhimji Bhanji. The suit was tried by the Chief Judge Mr. Jhaveri and a decree was passed against the defendants on June 20, 1924. Subsequently, the plaintiff made an application for leave to execute the decree under Order XXI, Rule 50, Sub-rule (2), of the Civil Procedure Code, and it was contended by the applicant that as the plaintiff knew of the fact of the dissolution of the firm of Kanji Khimji and Company, he was not liable as a partner inasmuch as he was not individually served under Order XXX, Rule 3. The Chief Judge Mr. Chitre, before whom this application was made, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not aware of the fact of the dissolution of the firm of Kanji Khimji and Company when the plaintiff filed this suit. Under Order XXI, Rule 50, execution could be granted at once in the...
Emperor Vs. William Cooper
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR747
Mirza, J.1. The appellant, original accused No. 1, was tried along with two others, original accused Nos 2 and 3, before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Bombay, for offences under Section 468 read with Section 109, p. 420 read with Section 109, ands. 420 road with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code, was convicted of those offences and sentenced to eighteen months' rigorous imprisonment. In convicting the appellant the Magistrate has relied on a written statement which accused No. 3 put in after the close of the prosecution case in answer to the question put by the Magistrate : ' What do you wish to say with reference to the evidence given and recorded against you ' He said : ' I got these false Goa lottery tickets printed at No. 1's press. Cooper (accused No. 1) made all the tracings. I have stated in full in my written statement the circumstances in which I got these tickets printed.' The written statement gives a full and detailed account of how the offences charged against the ...
Ganeshi Lal Vs. Thakur Charan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1146
Tomlin, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Allahabad which reversed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Aligarh.2. In the suit the respondents, before their Lordships' Board, being the representatives of the purchaser of one property (which may be called K) sued for contribution from the appellants, the purchasers of a second property (which may be called M), on the ground that the purchaser of K had paid off a mortgage which covered both properties.3. Now the section of the Transfer of Property Act which deals with the right of contribution is Section 82, and it is in these terms :-Whore several properties, whether of one or several owners, are mortgaged to secure one debt, such properties are, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, liable to contribute rateable to the debt secured by the mortgage, after deducting from the value of each property the amount of any other in-cumbrance to which it is subject at the date of the mo...
Suleman Vs. Haji Abdul Latif
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1152
Killowen, J.1. The action in which these appeals arise is a partnership action in which the plaintiffs claimed (') a decree for dissolution, and (b) that the accounts of the partnership be taken. Other relief was claimed in the following terms: ' (c) That sums found duo to the plaintiffs by the defendants be ordered to be paid by them.'2. Up to a point the facts are not in dispute. The plaintiffs, or their predecessors in title, had for some years before 1902 carried on a business in Karachi, as partners, in the firm name of A, Haji Dossal & Sons. In the year 1902 the firm acquired a business of dealing in arms and ammunition, which originally belonged to one A. Haji Tar Mahomed and which in 1902 was being carried on by his son Haji Hamad. The firm having acquired the said business, carried it on as a branch or department of their general business which they continued to carry on in their firm name, A. Haji Dossal & Sons. At the time the arms and ammunition business was acquired, the d...
Shah Zahid HussaIn Vs. Mohammad Ismail
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1150
Blanesburgh, J. 1. In this ease, on July 23, 1923, as the result of an ex parte application by the appellants, their Lordships humbly advised His Majesty that special leave should be granted to the applicants to appeal to His Majesty in Council against a decree which had been made against them by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on February 22, 1916. The leave was so advised upon special terms as to the coats of the respondents, who are a very large body of holders of small properties in the abndi of the seminlari belonging to the appellants. The application was made by the appellants upon the ground that the decree against which they desired to appeal not only directly affected the properties claimed by the respondents, which did not themselves exceed in aggregate value the sum of Rs. 5,100, but that it indirectly affected the title of the appellants to other properties in the abadi, the aggregate value of which was far in excess of Rs. 10,000. An application for leave to app...
Nawasi Begum Vs. Dilafroz Begum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1519
Blanesburgh, J.1. The property which is the subject-matter of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen belonged to one Abdul Shah, who died on October 9, 1881, leaving him surviving his widow Zamani Begam and his cousin Mansur Shah. According to the Mahomedan law, one-fourth of the property of the deceased devolved upon his widow and three-fourths upon Mansur Shah, while the widow being so entitled took possession of the whole of the estate in lieu of her dower which, as she claimed) amounted to Rs. 50,000. Thereafter Mansur Shah, having assigned a one-half share out of his three-fourths interest to Usman Shah and Zamani Khan, joined with them in April, 1892, in filing a suit against the widow in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Farrukhabad, alleging that her dower amounted to no more than Es. 1,000, and that it had long ago been discharged from her usufruct of the estate, and claiming (1) that possession should be delivered to them unconditionally of a three-fourths share of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »