Mumbai Court July 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.
Sitabai Purshottam Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1930
Reported in: AIR1930Bom488; 129Ind.Cas.350
1. This is a revision application against the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Bombay convicting the three accused who are a sister and two brothers of stealing a barge named Gharapuri. Now it appears that an agreement for the sale of the barge was entered into between accused No. 1 Sitabai and the complainant Dnarsey Mulji on July 29, 1929 (Ex. A). The agreement provided that the barge should be sold for Rs. 1,051 of which Rs. 300 were to be paid as earnest money, i.e., as deposit, that the vendor should give delivery of the barge to the purchaser at Sewree Bunder, that the vendor should paint, repair or cause to be repaired any defects in the said vessel and should give delivery in a perfectly sound and seaworthy condition on the same being certified to be so by a competent and certified surveyor, that the costs of painting, surveying and harbour charges after the barge came to Sewree Bunder should be borne by the purchaser, that until the surveyor certified the barge to b...
Haridas Himatlal Vs. Lallubhai Mulchand Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1930
Reported in: 129Ind.Cas.153
Madgavkar, J.1. One Himatlal Maganlal was a member of a joint Hindu family along with his son, Haridas. He was adjudicated insolvent under the Provincial Insolvency Act V of 1920. A receiver of the insolvent's estate was appointed and he desired to sell by auction the share in the joint family property, not only of the insolvent, but also of the minor son. The latter by his mother opposed the sale of his own share, and the lower Courts decided that the receiver had power to sell it, the insolvent's debts not having been proved to have been incurred for an immoral purpose. The minor appeals. And the question, in this appeal, is whether the receiver has power to sell the minor's share for the benefit of the insolvent's estate.2. The argument for the appellant is as follows:-The estate is different from the power to dispose of it and the power now in question is not ' property' under Section 2 (d) of the Provincial Insolvency Act. That Act contains no provision corresponding to Section 52...
Kashinath Rajaram Somani Vs. Govind Shankar Jinsiwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1299
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the darkhasfc is barred by limitation.2. The decree-holder is a minor represented by the Court of Wards. The present darkhast is more than three years after the previous darkhast. The trial Court held that the Court of Wards was a trustee for the minor and that Section 6 of the Indian Limitation Act did not apply. The lower appellate Court held that the Court of Wards was a manager and Section 6 applied and therefore the darkhast was time-barred. The judgment-debtor appeals.3. The question whether the Court of Wards is a trustee or a manager is irrelevant. Under Section 6 the last date for the decree-holder to apply was within three years after attaining majority. It has been held by the Courts in a series of cases such as Mon Mohun Buksee v. Gunga Soondery Dabee ILR (1882) Cal. 181, Lolit Mohun Misser v. Janoky Nath Roy ILR (1893) Cal. 714, Nwendva Nath Pahari v. Shupendra Narain Roy ILR (1895) Cal. 374, and Zamir Hasan v. Sundar ...
Govindprasad Vasudev Tiwari Vs. Shivlinga Shivlingappa Chappalli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1482; 129Ind.Cas.577
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of the property in suit as the adopted son of Shivlingappa who died leaving his widow Dyatnavva, and throe daughters Mallavva, defendant No. 2, Patrevva, defendant No. 3, and Shidavva, defendant No. 4 The plaintiff, the son of Mallavva, was adopted by Dyamavva in 1921.2. On June 23, 1914, the widow Dyamavva passed a deed of gift, Exhibit 86, in favour of the three daughters in respect of survey Nos. 12 and 13. The deceased left in addition to the two survey numbers a house and some moveables. On the same day a deed of maintenance, Exhibit 83, was passed by the three daughters in favour of the widow reconveying one half of the bigger and more valuable survey No. 1.2 to the widow, and a sale-deed, Exhibit 41, was passed by three daughters in respect of half the survey number in favour of the father of defendant No. 1. The husbands of the three daughters passed a deed of consent, Exhibit 39, in respect of the deed...
Bolo Vs. Koklan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1596
Binod Mitter, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals, one by the plaintiff, Mst. Koklan, and the other by the defendant Mst. Bolo, from a judgment and decree, dated October 12, 1928, of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province, Peshawar, which reversed a judgment and decree, dated January 31, 1928, of the District Judge of Peshawar, and made a decree partly allowing the plaintiff's claim and partly dismissing it.2. Kanhaya Lal executed his last will and testament on May 27, 1896, and died in the year 1899, leaving surviving his sole widow the plaintiff, Mst. Koklan, his infant son Tara Chand, and his great nephew Mohan Lal, as will appear from the following pedigree:-Sultan Singh.|----------------------------------------| | |Wiaakbi Bam Jul Mal Kanhaya Lal = Musammat Koklan| | (died 1899) (Plaintiff)Moti Ram Muaammat Sarasti || ------------------------ Mohan Lal | | || Musammat Musammat Tara Chand (died 1910) Nikki Bhappo (died 1918)| marriad | Musammat Bol...
Ahmed Suleman Vohra Vs. Bai Fatma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1372
Madgavkar, J. 1. This is an appeal by the husband against a decree for divorce to the plaintiff-respondent granted by the trial Court, and confirmed in appeal by the District Court.2. Both the Courts found that the appellant husband had falsely charged the respondent wife with adultery. The parties are Bohras and Sunni Mahomedans. Both the Courts held that a alse charge entitled the wife to divorce.3. Three grounds are taken for the appellant. Firstly, that he should have been given express opportunity of retracting this false charge in the trial Court and this appeal should be remanded for that purpose. Secondly, the appellant resided at Petlad in the Baroda territory and the British Courts had therefore DO jurisdiction. Thirdly, the respondent wife was sixteen and not eighteen at the time of the date of the suit and she was not therefore competent to sue without a guardian. 4. On the first point, it is true that the marriage was celebrated at Nadiad, the appellant made the charge of ...
Raghunath Abaji Waghodkar Vs. Lahanu Vithoba Sutar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1376
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover Bs. 596-7-3 paid for redemption of the mortgage on the house belonging to the defendant.2. In 1909, the defendant mortgaged his house to one Devidas. In 1913 he passed a sale-deed to the present plaintiff. In 1915 Devidas obtained a decree on his mortgage against the present plaintiff and the defendant, and on July 15, 1918, the plaintiff paid the amount of Rs. 422-13-3 to the mortgagee decree-holder. It appears that before this payment to the mortgagee the plaintiff had brought two suits, No. 342 of 3915 and No. 846 of 1917, against the defendant for possession of the property in suit but they were withdrawn. Subsequent to the payment he brought suit No. 378 of 1919 for possession against the defendant and obtained a decree for possession, but on appeal it was held that there was no consideration for the sale and that the plaintiff wan simply a benamidar. On September 18, 1922, the decree was passed in appeal and the pla...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›