Mumbai Court June 1930 Judgments
Gurulingappa Shivappa Masali Vs. Somanna Shiddappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom506; (1930)32BOMLR1246
Patkar, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff against eight persons for contribution in respect of a payment made by him in execution of a decree against him and the defendants.2. One Ramalingappa brought suit No. 347 of 1919 for partition against Somanna and ten others. In execution of the decree the judgment-creditor filed darkhast No. 16 of 1923 and recovered Rs. 1,679-0-5 from the present plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, deducting his share of the decretal amount brought a suit for contribution against the present defendants.3. The learned Subordinate Judge passed a joint decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,417-7-6 and costs against the defendants. On appeal, the learned District Judge, relying on the decision in Hira Chand v. Abdal ILR (1877) All. 455, held it was not open to the plaintiff to claim from the co-judgment-debtors collectively one lump sum as contributors, and, therefore, dismissed the suit.4. In Keshav Vithal v. Hari Ramkrishna ILR (1923) 48 Bom. 351...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Raghunath Kulkarni Vs. Krishnaji Govind Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom534; (1930)32BOMLR1249
Patkar, J. 1. The question involved in this second appeal is whether a watandar can validly devise his watan property by will in favour of a watandar of the same watan.2. The lands in suit are admittedly Kulkarni watan lands. The Kulkarni service is commuted. Mere commutation of service does not affect the rule as to inalienability embodied in Section 5 (1) (a) of the Watan Act unless the right of alienation without the sanction of Government is conferred on the watandars by the terms of the settlement or has been acquired by them under the same terms. The property in suit is not alleged to be watan property assigned under Section 23 as remuneration of an officiator. Section 7 of the Watan Act will not, therefore, apply. It is common ground that Section 5 (1) (a) of the Watan Act applies to the property in suit. Section 5 (1) (a) of the Watan Act says that it shall not be complete to a watandar to alienate for a period natural life any watan to watandar of the same watan. Under Section...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappa Ningappa Meti Vs. Tipava Gudadappa Meti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom539; (1930)32BOMLR1289
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the District Judge of Bijapur, and the petitioner, who is the appellant, was applying for letters of administration with the will annexed in respect of the estate of one Gudadappa who died on October 29,1925, and whose will was made on November 23, 1920. The widow of the testator opposed the will, and she is the respondent on this appeal. There were three issues raised, viz.:-(1) Is the execution of the will, Exhibit 79, proved ?(2) If so, was the deceased Gudadappa of a sound disposing mind at the time of execution and(3) Did he make and execute the will through the undue influence exercised over him by Ningondappa bin Mallappa Jogaredder?2. The learned Judge answered the first issue in the affirmative, that is to say, he held that the will was executed. He answered the second issue in the negative, that is, that the testator was not of sound disposing mind at the time of execution, and he held that the third issue was unnecessary, althou...
Tag this Judgment!Basangauda Shiddangauda Chikangoudar Vs. the Secretary of State for In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1370
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. The question arises in this appeal whether the suit is barred under Section 4 (a) of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. This is a technical point, and I express my opinion with great diffidence, but I am fortified by the view of my learned brother Baker J. The appellant is in this difficulty, viz., if the claim is against the Government, it is a claim which relates to property appertaining to the office of an hereditary officer, and therefore no suit lies in the civil Court under Section 4 (a), first paragraph, of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. Mr. Gumaste, who appears for the appellant, says that his claim is not a claim against the Government but in that case he ought to strike out the Government. He is not prepared to strike out the Government, because if he does they will not be bound by these proceedings and will follow the decision of their revenue tribunals. Therefore he wants to make the Government a party in order that they may be bound. But, if...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Protap Chamaria Vs. Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1586
Viscount Dunedin, J.1. This is a case which follows many other cases raising the question of the proper value to be allowed for certain compulsorily acquired land. The general principles on which the Board deals with these cases have been laid down particularly in two cases cited, Narsingh Das v. Secretary of State for India (1924) L.R. 52 IndAp 133 : 27 Bom. L.B. 783 and Nowroji Rustomji Wadia v. Bombay Government (1925) L.R. 52 IndAp 367 : 27 Bom. L.R. 1140. It is clear from those cases that their Lordships cannot interfere with the figures that have been settled by the High Court unless it can be shown there has been some real mistake in law or some palpable omission which would invalidate the valuation. Now here, the whole case for the higher valuation which is asked for depends upon the appellants being able to appeal to a certain contract for sale of part of the lands which fixed a very much higher figure. The learned Judges, acquainted with the circumstances on the spot, have co...
Tag this Judgment!Rajendra Prasad Boso Vs. Gopal Prasad Sen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1588
Binod Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated December 16, 1927, which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge at Cuttack, dated August 6, 1923, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit with costs.2. The following is the genealogical table of the family of Ram Prosad Bose, and the parties to the litigation claim to be his heirs.Unamoyee = Golak Prasad (died October 26, 1873) = Alhadini Dasi (1st wife) | | (2nd wife).Rama Prosad Bose = Alhadini alias Gangomont |(died Feb. 16, 1869) (died 7th Sept., 1920) |--------------------------------------------------| | | |Gobinda Prosad Sananda Prosad Binod Prosad Sonaton Prosad (deed. plff. No. 1). (plff. No. 2.). (plff. No. 3). (deceased). |Rajenda (plff. No. 1).3. Ram Prosad Bose executed a will and also an Anumatipatra in favour of his wife Alhadini Dasi on February 16, 1869.4. Alhadini Dasi, the widow, adopted one Krishna Prosad in the year 1885, and he died in 190D leaving the respondent hi...
Tag this Judgment!Shalig Ram Vs. Charanjit Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1578
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in the suit against a decree of the Judicial Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province, dated July 25, 1927, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Peshawar dated July 1, 1926, and decreed the major portion of the plaintiffs' claim,2. The suit was brought by Hukam Chand and Charaujit Lal, alleging that they were the reversionary heirs of one Mul Chand and that on the death of his last surviving widow, Musammat Sahib Devi, they were entitled to recover possession of the properties specified in plaint, which they alleged were in the possession of the defendants, and which were originally the ancestral property of the said Mul Chand. Hukam Chand died pendente lite and is now represented by Musammat Sitan Devi, the second respondent.3. The defendants claim title to the said properties by transfer either inter vivas or by will from the said Musammat Sahib Devi.4. Mul Chand was a Baba or Hindu priest, who lived ...
Tag this Judgment!Mukhal Singh Vs. Kishuni Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1576
Viscount Dunedin, J. 1. In this case the question has been raised as to whether the appeal is competent. Special leave to appeal was granted on an ex parts application ; but it has been settled in a judgment of this Board that that does not preclude the Board, when the true facts are brought before it, from going into the question of whether the appeal is competent or not: Zahib Husain v. Mohammad Ishmael No. (2 . Upon that question the present case seems to be entirely covered by another decision of the Board in Gudivada Mangamma v. Maddi Makalakshmamma Under these circumstances their Lordships will humbly advice His Majesty that the appeal is incompetent and should be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Moti Lal Manucha Vs. the Unao Commercial Bank
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1571
Tomlin, J.1. Certain Cawnpore firms, in all or some of which Bisheshar Nath was a partner, drew during the years 1921 and 1922 a series of ten hundis upon a Calcutta firm of Motilal Bisheshar Nath. The partners in the firm of Motilal Bisheshar Nath were the appellant and Bisheshar Nath.2. Of the ten hundis, eight were accepted in the name of Motilal Bisheshar Nath, by the munib Shambu Nath was the munib.-K.J.R. of the firm. The remaining two hundis were drawn by way of renewal of and in substitution for two of the eight accepted hundis, but were never accepted.3. The eight hundis were discounted by one or other of the respondent banks, and all the hundis were dishonoured at maturity.4. The banks in four suits sued Motilal Bisheshar Nath, and others on the hundis. All four suits were heard together.5. Three of the suits related to the six accepted hundis in respect of which there were no renewal hundis given. On September 21, 1923, the Subordinate Judge at Cawnpore made decrees in these...
Tag this Judgment!Narayanaswami Ayyar Vs. Rama Ayyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1564
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants (Nos. 1 to 8 and 10 in the suit) from a decree dated October 15, 1925, and two judgments dated August 15, 1924, and October 15, 1925, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, reversing a decree dated September 30, 1921, made by the Subordinate Judge of Mayavaram. The first four respondents are plaintiffs in the suit and the remainder of the respondents are pro forma defendants.2. The suit was brought by five surviving sons of one Lakshmiammal. Since the institution of the suit one of the sons, Subramania Ayyar, died ; the third and fourth plaintiffs are his legal representatives.3. The two questions in this appeal are whether a transaction entered into by Thayammal, the widow of one Ananthakrishna Ayyar, in the year 1867, constituted a valid ' surrender' under the Hindu law, and if not, what would be the proper compensation payable to the defendants Nos. 1, 3 and 4 in respect of a building which had been erected by the vend...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »