Mumbai Court August 1930 Judgments
Dharwar Bank Ltd. Vs. Mahomed Hayat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom269
Patkar, J. 1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that he was the owner of the ten shares in the defendant bank. The defence was that the shares belonged to the deceased son of the plaintiff and that the bank had a charge on the shares for the debts of the deceased. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff proved that the shares in question belonged to him. On appeal the case was remanded and the learned Subordinate Judge on remand held that the shares in suit did not belong to the plaintiff and that the name of the son was not entered benami for the plaintiff as alleged, and therefore dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 3. On appeal the learned District Judge held that there was no presumption of any intended advancement in favor of the son, and that the evidence adduced on behalf of the defendant was so slender and meager that he would not be justified in holding that the defendant discharged the burden. He therefore sot aside the decree of the lowe...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Waman Rajguru Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom212
Patkar, J. 1. These appeals relate to suits which have arisen out of the commutation of the kulkarni watans in 1914. The plaintiffs are the persons with whose consent the kulkarni watans were commuted or their representatives or cosharers, and it is alleged in each case that the consent was not freely given and was duo to coercion on the part of Government and that there was no investigation under Section 73, Watan Act. and therefore the orders of commutation were illegal. The plaintiffs ask for a declaration that they are entitled to officiate as watandar kulkarnis and a permanent injunction against the defendant restraining him from doing anything which would affect the rights of the plaintiffs in the kulkarni watans. 2. The defendant the Secretary of State denied the several allegations made in the plaint and contended that the suits were barred under Section 4(a) and Section 11, Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act and were also barred under Articles 14, 44, 91 and 120, Lim. Act and rai...
Tag this Judgment!Dawoodbhai Abdulkader Vs. Abdulkader Ismailji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom164
Wadia, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the defendant for an order that all further proceedings in the suit may be stayed in order to enable the parties to refer the matter in dispute to arbitration according to their agreement. The plaintiff was the sub partner of the defendant in a certain business of manufacturing matches under the terms of a deed of sub-partnership dated 25th May 1925 and the said deed incorporated all. The articles, covenants, conditions and obligations contained in the principal partnership agreement between the defendant and his partner, which were not inconsistent with the terms of the agreement, The agreement between the defendant and his partner was executed immediately before the deed of sub-partnership on the same day, i.e. 25th May 1925 Clause 20 of the agreement provides inter alia that any dispute or difference arising between the partners in regard to the construction of any of the articles contained in the agreement or to any division, act o...
Tag this Judgment!Baburao Lakshman Nikam and ors. Vs. Tukaram Pundalika Powar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom208
Patkar, J. 1. This was a suit brought, by the plaintiffs to recover possession of the plaint property on the ground that it belonged to one Murari and after his death to his wife Zinga, that Zinga died and the property was inherited by Am who died on 4th February 1924, and that the plaintiffs as the stepsons of Anu are entitled to succeed to Murari. 2. It appears that on 23rd May 1921, the widow Zinga and her surviving daughter Anu, the only reversioner then living, passed a deed of gift in favour of Tukaram, the present defendant 1. The other defendants are alienees from defendant 1. 3. Both the lower Courts held that the gift by Zinga with the consent of Anu of the whole of the property which was inherited by her from her husband in favour of defendant 1 was valid, and that the plaintiffs were estopped from disputing the validity of the deed of gift in favour of defendant 1. 4. After the decision of the learned Assistant Judge a review application was filed and it was held that the p...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Narayan Janu Mahajan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1493
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this application is, whether the complaint of the petitioner against police and the mulki patils of Savde under Sections 323, 504 and 506, Indian Penal Code, cannot proceed without the sanction of Government under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code, as the District Magistrate has held.2. The complaint was that the talati and these two patila compelled the petitioner against his will to pay a certain amount for the Taluka Agricultural Association, by means of force, abuse, and intimidation, and it is argued for the petitioner, that the case falls within the ruling of this Court in Narayan v. Yeshwant and Dattaraya v. Annappa : AIR1928Bom352 and Emperor v. Hanmant : (1929)31BOMLR789 , and sanction was not necessary. It is contended for Government that it is Government which had asked the police and revenue, patils to enrol subscribers and recover the subscription for this association, and that the ordinary act of abuse committed by them in recovering suc...
Tag this Judgment!Narsidas Jekisondas Vs. Ravishankar Prabhashankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1930
Reported in: (1930)32BOMLR1435
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.1. A preliminary question arises in this case as to whether the document, Exhibit A, is admissible in evidence. Exhibit A is a certified copy of a document which is in the possession of the Collector of Bombay. The document of which Exhibit A is a copy is a copy conveyance, dated August 6, 1838, of a property which now belongs to defendant No. 1, There is no question that the certified copy is a correct copy. The question is whether the document, of which it is a copy, namely, the copy in the possession of the Collector, is properly admissible in evidence of the original document.2. Under Regulation 9 of 1827 it is provided in the second clause of Section 5 thatA separate book to be called 'the Book of .Entries ' shall be kept for each of the two registers, in the form contained in appendix C.3. That is a form of register for registering the particulars of the document relating to immoveable property, and various particulars have to be entered in that. Then the 4th...
Tag this Judgment!Anant Krishnaji Nulkar and ors. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom238
Beaumont, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Khandesh at Dhulia who dismissed the suit. The first three issues raised were:(1) Whether the suit is barred by Section 11, Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he be came the owner of the land in suit in virtue of the Collector's order. (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the subsequent demand of any occupancy price and his dispossession, on failure to pay the same were illegal. 2. The facts are not in dispute and can be shortly stated. In May 1919, appellant 1 (whom I will refer to as the appellant, appellant 2 being his wife who claims under him by deed of gift), who had been serving in the Indian Medical Service, applied to the Collector for a grant of land under the Land Revenue Code, and on 22nd May 1919, the Collector made an order, which is Ex. 31, in which he granted the appellant certain survey numbers on certain conditions which included freedom from payment of ...
Tag this Judgment!Govind Vithu Mali Vs. Vithal Laxman Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom191
Patkar, J. 1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs the owners of the watan land in suit to recover possession, or in the alternative for enhancement of rent. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendants had succeeded in tracing their tenure back to such a long period that the burden of showing the commencement of the tenure was shifted on to the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs had not discharged the burden, and therefore raised the presumption Under Section 83, Bombay Land Revenue Code, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit for possession of the land and allowed the enhancement as directed in the decree. 3. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the learned District Judge expressed the opinion that in view of the fact that the defendants were in occupation of the land as tenants before 1863, and the origin of the tenancy was lost in antiquity, he would have agreed with the view of the lower Court, but relying on the Privy Council ruling in the case of Madhavrao Waman v. Raghun...
Tag this Judgment!Vrijlal Mansukhram and ors. Vs. Chunilal Fatechand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom210
Patkar, J. 1. In this case the respondents, the firm of Messrs. Chunilal Fatechand, were the creditors of the insolvent and had notified and also proved their claim before the dividend was declared by the receiver, whereas the appellants, Vrijlal Mansukhram and others, who were the creditors of the insolvent, proved them only after the declaration of the dividend.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that as it was the only dividend and probably the final dividend, the appellants were entitled to individual notices Under Section 64, Provl. Insol. Act 5 of 1920, and therefore, as they did not receive the notices they were entitled to reopen the distribution of the dividend already declared and distributed. The view of the learned Subordinate Judge was confirmed by the District Judge in appeal. On second appeal, Madgavkar, J., came to the contrary conclusion, and held that the mare fact that the first dividend proved to be the final dividend did not entitle the negligent creditors to com...
Tag this Judgment!Ningaya Bharmanna Chiksindgi Vs. Madivalava Gurappa Moratgi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom187
Patkar, J. 1. The question involved in this appeal is whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by res judicata by the operation of the decree passed in suit No. 136 of 1923. 2. In suit No. 136 of 1923, the plaintiff sued to recover possession of the whole of the property on the ground that she had purchased it in 1907 from one Bhimappa Shiddappa for Rs. 150 and that she was the exclusive owner of the property and that her sister, the defendant had no interest therein. The defence in that case was that the mother was the owner of the property, that the mother Jivubai and the defendant were joint purchasers of survey No. 178 which was exchanged for the land in suit, and that the exchange was effected by the defendant herself and that the plaintiff had no share therein. The learned Subordinate Judge in that case held that the plaintiff's purchase of 1907 was not proved, but granted the plaintiff possession of half the share on the ground that the property belonged to the mother Jivubai...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »