Mumbai Court October 1931 Judgments
Bapu Vithal Rajput Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom370; (1932)34BOMLR780; 140Ind.Cas.164
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of West Khandesh. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the three houses and the mango trees upon the land, the survey numbers of which are referred to in the judgment of the learned District Judge, belong to them and for recovery of possession thereof from defendant No. 2, and also to recover price of mango crops and damages from both defendants.2. The material facts are that one Sonia, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs, became the occupier of the survey numbers referred to, upon which stood the mango trees in suit and upon one of which survey numbers, viz., 127, stood the three houses in suit, On the grant of the land to Sonia, Government did not reserve the trees under the power contained in Section 40 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and in the year 1907 Sonia applied to the Collector for a kaul or lease of the trees, and the Collector replied that the trees had been declared to be of S...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshwant Kashinath Padwal Vs. Genajee Venajee and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom127; (1932)34BOMLR230; 137Ind.Cas.375
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for stay of execution on a judgment pronounced by Mr. Justice Kania, We have ordered stay of execution on certain terms which it is not material to state. The only question which arises now is as to the costs of this application. Two rival views have apparently prevailed at different times in the past in this Court. One view is that the grant of a stay of execution is an indulgence; the decree at the moment is effective and the applicant is seeking to prevent the decree-holder from taking advantage of his rights, and on that view the applicant for the stay has been ordered to pay the costs in any event. That is the view which I think prevails in England and In Calcutta and was at one time adoptedby this Court, The other view is that the decree may be reversed on appeal and if that happens, the execution of the decree was not, in the light of subsequent events, justified, and in that case the successful appellant ought not to have been o...
Tag this Judgment!Nagindas Narandas Lavar Vs. Somnath Premchand Lavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom122; (1932)34BOMLR343; 137Ind.Cas.461
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad. The plaintiffs who are respondents on the appeal are members of the Lodhagada section of the Lohar caste and they sued for a declaration that they have a right individually to inspect the accounts and documents of the caste. The defendants are the managers of the caste; presumably (though there is no evidence on the point) the caste properties are vested in them, but certainly they are the managers of the caste property. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiffs were entitled at all reasonable times and after proper demand to a right of inspecting the documents of title about the caste property and all accounts, papers and vouchers regarding the management of defendant No. 1 who is the principal manager; and that judgment was upheld by the Assistant Judge on appeal.2. Mr. Divatia for the appellants takes a preliminery point that this is a caste question and that the Court ha...
Tag this Judgment!Sadashiv Vishnu Sonar Vs. Sakharam Raghunath Sonar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-15-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom218; (1932)34BOMLR398
Tyabji, J.1. These are applications that I should declare the cases as being fit for appeal from judgments of mine passed in second appeal.2. The learned advocate, who appears in Civil Application No. 937 of 1931, relies upon the facts that in the case concerned an important question of law was involved; that I reversed the decree of the lower Court; that I characterised the questions of law involved as being complicated, and I considered them with some care and detail in my judgment. I notice with surprise and admire the restraint which has caused the omission of the ground that my decision is wrong. But I could not have allowed myself to be misled, or the party to be prejudiced, by this large-hearted omission : even if the omission had not been made up for by the almost irresistibly tactful suggestion that Courts are apt on such questions to take divergent views-leaving me to infer that another Court might take a view different from mine.3. In other cases, the ground of application i...
Tag this Judgment!Alimahomed Gulam HusseIn Molubhai Vs. the Deccan Match Manufacturing C ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom253; (1932)34BOMLR411
Baker, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the District Judge of Satara under Section 215 of the Indian Companies Act granting a perpetual injunction restraining the appellant from executing his decree against the assets of the Deccan Match Manufacturing Company in liquidation.2. The facts are that the appellant's father obtained a decree in the High Court against the Deccan Match Manufacturing Company in Summary Suit No. 279 of 1927 on April 5, 1927. The decree was ex parte, and there was no appeal against it. Nor was any application made to set aside the ex parte decree. The decree was transferred for execution to the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Satara. In the meantime the company had gone into liquidation, and the liquidator presented an application to the District Judge under Section 215 of the Indian Companies Act asking the Court to determine whether the hundi transaction entered into by the Chitale Bros, was binding against the company, whether therewa...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Nagappa Wagh Vs. Savlo Subrao Bhujle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom237; (1932)34BOMLR404
Shingne, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant got a decree in suit No. 116 of 1921 against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 for Rs. 1,057-8-0 and costs, which amounted to Rs. 142-10-0. The decree provided interest on Rs. 1,000 till realisation at nine per cent. The decretal amount was made payable by instalments. There was a default clause in the decree, which provided that if any two instalments went into arrears the whole amount should be recovered at once. There was a default in payment of two instalments, and the decree-holder pressed his claim against the judgment-debtors and asked the Court which passed the decree to award the whole amount due under the decree by filing adarkhast for that purpose. While the darkhast was pending, the mortgage in suit was passed in favour of the plaintiff by defendants Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and by defendant No. 1 for defendants Nos. 3 and 4 on the strength of a power-of-attorney, and as guardian of defendant No. 6. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 1,495, and bore i...
Tag this Judgment!Venilal Chhaganlal Vs. Virchand Khumchand Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom228; (1932)34BOMLR382
Baker, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the District Judge of Surat sitting in insolvency jurisdiction confirming the order of the Subordinate Judge of Surat appointing a temporary receiver in the case of the present appellant against whom the petition in insolvency has been presented.2. A preliminary objection is taken by the learned advocate for the respondents that no appeal will lie under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act inasmuch as the order of the District Court is not an order under Section 4 of the Act. The section of the Act says:-Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Court shall have full power to decide all questions whether of title or priority, or of any nature whatsoever, and whether involving matters of law or of fact, which may arise in any case of insolvency coming within the cognisance of the Court, or which the Court may deem it expedient or necessary to decide for the purpose of doing complete justice or making a complete distribution o...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Fulchand Vs. Hemchand Tapidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom224; (1932)34BOMLR395
Patkar, J.1. The finding of the lower appellate Court is that the defendants protruded their eaves on the plaintiffs' roof in the year 1909. The suit was instituted in 1927 about eighteen years after the protrusion of the eaves. The lower appellate Court directed that the defendants should not allow their eaves to protrude over the plaintiffs' roof.2. On behalf of the appellants it is contended that where a person erects a building overhanging the land of another he commits a trespass and acquires by prescription a right to the space of air occupied by such projection, and reliance is placed on the case of Bahadarmal v. Mohanlal (1924) 27 Bom. L.R. 536, where it was held that if a person opens the shutters of his windows and projects weather frames over them for more than twelve years on the land of another, he acquires a right to maintain them by adverse possession. The judgment of the single Judge is inconsistent with the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in Chotalal Hira...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Parsan Vs. Lallubhai Vandravandas Rani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom217; (1932)34BOMLR459
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad.2. It appears that in 1909 the plaintiff married defendant No. 1 and a document was executed on that occasion, which is Exhibit 19. By that document, to which I will refer in a moment, the plaintiff was given right to reside in a certain house and to enjoy her food from the rent of the house. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 executed a deed of gift of the house in favour of his grandsons defendants Nos. 2 and 3, and the question is whether he could do that in the face of the document of February 5, 1909. By that document defendant No. 1 recites that be has contracted a natra marriage with the plaintiff and certain ornaments of Rs. 150 have been agreed to be given to her. Then he says :She may stay in the house and oat food. She may enjoy her food from the rent of the house at Pankor's Naka. We admit to what is written above.3. The learned Judge held that that document could not...
Tag this Judgment!Basalingava Revanshiddappa Umbarji Vs. Chinnava Karibasappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom247; (1932)34BOMLR427
Patkar, J.1. This appeal raises the question whether in a suit by the vendee it is competent to the Court to pass a decree for possession conditional on the vendee paying the unpaid purchase money.2. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the house in suit alleging that it belonged to her father Shivlingappa who sold it to her on December 15, 1920, for Rs. 1,000 and delivered possession, and that during her absence she was dispossessed by the defendants, her sisters. Defendant No. 3 admitted the plaintiff's claim. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 alleged that the transaction was hollow and without consideration and denied that the possession was handed over to the plaintiff.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the transfer was not colourable but was without consideration, and passed a decree ordering possession of the entire house on condition that if within three months the plaintiff did not pay to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 Rs. 600 the suit shall be dismissed, and that the plaintiff s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »