Mumbai Court July 1930 Judgments
Indian Cotton Co. Ltd. Vs. Raghunath Hari Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom178
Patkar, J. 1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of the land in suit on the ground that the property belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff and his uncle Ramchandra Martand who passed a lease on 28th July 1879, in favor of the defendant company for a period of five years when ho was a minor and therefore the lease was void, that at a partition between the plaintiff and his uncle the land in suit fell to the share of the plaintiff, and that the defendant when he was called upon to deliver possession refused to do so. 2. The defendant company contended that Ramchandra Martand was a major at the time of the execution of the lease, and therefore the lease was binding on him as well as his heirs, and even assuming that he was a minor, he ratified it by his conduct in recovering the rent from the defendant company, and that the lease, Ex. 12, was not for a period of five years only but created a permanent tenancy in favour of the defendants. 3. The learned S...
Tag this Judgment!Jalbhai Cursetji Driver Vs. Jerbai Hormasji Palkhivala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1301
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This appeal raises the question, whether the father of an infant, or the maternal grandmother, ought to be allowed to perform the Navjote or thread ceremony, according to the Zoroastrian faith, in respect of the infant who is a ward of Court and whose parents were Parsis.2. Now, the relevant facts are that the parents of the minor were married in 1917, and the wife died in 1929. During the lifetime of the wife, the minor lived a great part of the time with the wife's mother, who is the present respondent.3. After the death of the wife, the father of the minor presented a petition in the matter of the Guardians and Wards Act, Act VIII of 1890, and in the matter of the infant, in which he asked for directions as to the custody and maintenance of the infant, and in September 19 29 a consent order was made under which the petition was adjourned sine die, the infant was to live for six months of the year with the father and six months of the year with her grandmother...
Tag this Judgment!Kashinath Mahadev Mahajan Vs. Gangubai Keshav Nagarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1687; 129Ind.Cas.741
Patkar, J.1. One Gopal Vyankatesh died in 1892 leaving behind him his widow Radhabai and some daughters of whom the plaintiff is the surviving one. He made a will, Exhibit 57, in the year 1883, and directed his widow to make an adoption, and in case she did not, he directed that all his property should be utilized in trust for a religious purpose. After his death the widow did not take anybody in adoption and made a will, Exhibit 58, in 1898, by which excepting one house given absolutely to her daughter, the present plaintiff, she gave the remaining property in trust for a religions institution and appointed two executors, Vinayak Thakar and Gangabai Barde. In 1904 there was a compromise and an award decree between the plaintiff and the executors by which the plaintiff was not to urge her claim as heir to the plaint property, that she was to get one house and had to give back the other house which she had obtained under the will of her mother, and after the death of the trustees the ma...
Tag this Judgment!Pandharinath Govind Vani and anr. Vs. Ramchandra Bandu Vani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom157
Baker, J.1. In these appeals, which are cross appeals, the facts are as follows: The plaintiffs, who are minors, sued the defendants for a declaration that the sale deed dated 11th August 1921, passed by their mother to defendant 1's father, was null and void as against them, and that the defendants be ordered to give up actual possession of the suit house and to recover Rs. 5 per month as future mesne profits. The facts are that the plaintiffs were minors under the guardianship of their mother Sitabai, who was a widow, and their mother had to maintain them by labor, and she also borrowed small amounts from one Lotu who was occupying the house in suit which belonged to the plaintiffs' father. In November 1920 she passed a mortgage deed for Rs. 200 in favour of Lotu, and also passed a promissory note for Rs. 100 on 2nd December 1920, on which date the mortgage was registered. The property was thus in mortgage with Lotu, the amount due to him being Rs. 300, Rs. 200 on a mortgage and Rs. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Koya Partab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom593; (1930)32BOMLR1286
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. In this case the accused was convicted on April 29, 1930, under Section 32-5 of the Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to his wife, who died of the injuries. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. He appealed, and the appeal was summarily dismissed on June 9, 1930,--the appeal being an appeal from jail, under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In dismissing the appeal the Court of appeal directed that notice should be given to the accused to show cause why the sentence on him should not be enhanced.2. Now, the first point taken in this appeal is that the accused is entitled to be heard on the merits as to whether he should have been convicted or not, and Mr. Mehta, his pleader, relies on the words of Sub-section (6) of Section 489. That section provides that the Court may, in revision, amongst other things, enhance the sentence, and Sub-section (0) provides :-No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unle...
Tag this Judgment!Koya Partab Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.159
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. In this case the accused was convicted on April 29, 1930, under Section 325 of the Penal Code for causing grievous hurt to his wife, who died of the injuries. He was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. He appealed, and the appeal was summarily dismissed on June 9, 1930,--the appeal being an appeal from Jail, under Section 421 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In dismissing the appeal the Court of Appeal directed that notice should be given to the accused to show cause why the sentence on him should not be enhanced.2. Now, the first point taken in this appeal is that the accused is entitled to be heard on the merits as to whether he should have been convicted or not, and Mr. Mehta, his Pleader, relies on the words of Sub-section (6) of Section 439. That section provides that the Court may, in revision, amongst other things, enhance the sentence, and Sub-section (2) provides:No order under this section shall be made to the prejudice of the accused unless ...
Tag this Judgment!irappa Chanapa Arjangi Vs. Sidava Tukappa Arjangi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1430
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application for revision in respect of a judgment of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur, and the case arises in this way.2. The original suit was brought before the joint Subordinate Judge of Sholapur and it appears from his judgment, dated February 10, 1927, that the evidence in the case had been concluded and the plaintiff's advocate was then asked by the Judge the question, ' How in view of the statement of his own client the plaintiff, the marriage of Bhagawa with the deceased Shantapa could be held valid under the Hindu law'-the Judge apparently suggesting that the marriage might be invalid under the Hindu law-and the pleader asked for time to enable him to consider the question. The case was accordingly adjourned to the following Wednesday; on Wednesday neither the plaintiff nor his pleader was present and the case was them adjourned to Thursday. Again, on Thursday neither the plaintiff nor his pleader was present, a search was made f...
Tag this Judgment!Sursingji Dajiraj Thakorsaheb Vs. Manilal Vallabhdas Parikh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1679; 129Ind.Cas.881
Patkar, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff' who is the talukdar of Utelia in the Dholka Taluka in the Ahinedabad District and also the talukdar of Hariala to recover enhanced rent from the defendant who holds nine lands situated at Hariala.2. The plaintiff's case was that the tenancy was annual whereas the defendant's case was that it was permanent. Both the lower Courts held that the tenancy was ancient and there was no satisfactory evidence of the commencement of the tenancy, but came to the conclusion that there was evidence of usage as to the duration of the tenancy to the effect that the tenancy was from year to year and therefore allowed the plaintiff's claim for enhancement. The defendant preferred a second appeal and Mr. Justice Jladgavkar reversed the decisions of the lower Courts, and came to the conclusion that the usage relied on by the talukdar plaintiff was not proved, and sent down certain issues -for finding as to whether the plaintiff proved his right to enha...
Tag this Judgment!Jag Mohan Singh Vs. Sri Nath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1609
George Lowndes, J.1. In this appeal the Board have again to consider a question which has been discussed under different guises in a number of cases within the last few years, viz., whether, under Hindu law, a woman taking immovable property by gift from her husband has power to alienate it.2. The most recent decision on the subject is in Shalig Ram v. Charanjit Lal : (1930)32BOMLR1578 which cited and followed the judgment of Lord Buckmaster in Bhaidas Shivdas v. Bai Gulab (1921) L.R. 49 IndAp 1 : 24 Bom L.R. 551. Reference was also made to Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao in which Lord Buck master made certain remarks explanatory of the decision in Surajmani v. Rabi Nath Ojha , another case in which a widow's power of alienation had been called in question, but their Lordships have no doubt that these remarks were not intended to qualify in any way the pronouncement in Bhaidas Shivdas v. Bai Gulab. There is also an exhaustive judgment of Sir John Edge in Sasiman Chowdhwain v. Shib N...
Tag this Judgment!The Great Eastern Life Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bai Hira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1671; 129Ind.Cas.744
Patkar, J.1. This suit was brought by the plaintiff, the widow of one Nandlal Shivlal Satyavadi, to recover Rs, 10,780 on the life policy of her husband with the defendant company.2. The defendant contended that the policy was not binding on the defendant as the assured suppressed the fact of his having suffered from sangrahani. The learned Subordinate Judge raised an issue whether the assured was suffering from sprue or dysentery before or at the time of the medical examination and his declaration, and found in the negative, and awarded the plaintiff's claim.3. The plaintiff's husband made an application to the defendant company for insurance on his life. It stated:-I warrant that the above answers are full and true and that I am now and usually in sound health; and agree that this declaration, with the answers to be given by me to the Medical Examiner, shall be the basis of the policy and of the interim assurance should any be granted.4. On November 19, 1923, the policy, Exhibit 10, ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »