Mumbai Court October 1931 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.
Ramchanra Shankar Rajguru Vs. Anandibai Mahadev Pandit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom188; (1932)34BOMLR218; 137Ind.Cas.580
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge, Satara. The plaintiff sues for partition and separate possession of her half share of the property in suit. It appears that the original appellant, who is defendant No. 2, and who has died pending the appeal, and whose heirs are now on the record as appellants, had two daughters, one of them being the mother of the plaintiff, and the other being defendant No. 1, and he had also a son who was defendant No. 3. On May 10, 1916, the original appellant passed a deed of gift in favour of his two daughters, the plaintiff's mother and defendant No. 1, and that deed of gift was registered, On the same date the two daughters executed a document by which they stated that the properties had been given to them and a deed of gift executed and then they say:-We have to enjoy this property for our life and our sons and daughters are to do the same for their lives. After that the said estate is to be handed over to t...
The Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Mulji Haridas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom326; (1932)34BOMLR379
Baker, J.1. The facts out of which these two appeals arise are that in some land acquisition cases in Thana the award originally made by the land acquisition officer was greatly increased by the District Court. The High Court on appeal set aside the decree of the District Court and reduced the compensation to that awarded by the acquiring officer. It so happened that in the interval between these two dates the amount awarded by the District Court had been paid not to the claimant but to a nominee of his, mortgagee, respondent-Mulji. The person receiving the money executed a bond binding himself to repay it. There was no mention of interest in this bond. The amount was repaid and subsequently Government presented two applications to recover interest from the person executing the bond. There were two applications because the amount was paid in two sums, They were disposed of by one order by the District Judge of Thana, but there are two separate appeals.2. The District Judge held that th...
Nasarwanji Hormusji Contractor Vs. Jamshetji Navroji Kapadia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom232; (1932)34BOMLR376
Baker, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of the Subordinate Judge of Surat passed in a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendant for accounts in connection with a partnership. The suit was by consent of parties referred to arbitration. The arbitrator made an award. Objection was taken by the plaintiff, the present opponent, to the award, and the Subordinate Judge, after going into the matter, set aside the award, and directed the trial of the suit to proceed before himself. Against this order an application in revision has been made by the defendant, and a preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Counsel for the opponent that no such application will lie under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code in the face of two rulings on this very point by this Court, i.e. in Damodar v., Raghunath ILR (1902) 26 Bom. 651 : 4 Bom. L.R. 267 and Chimanbhai v. Keshavlal ILR (1923) 47 Bom. 721 : 25 Bom. L.R. 443 These two rulings, it is contended, are precisely...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›