Mumbai Court November 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.
Jogesh Chandra Roy Vs. Emdad Meah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR481
Thankerton, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated June 12, 1928, which reversed a decree of the District Judge of Chittagong, dated June 27, 1925, modifying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chittagong, dated June 14, 1924, and dismissed the suit, in which the appellant was plaintiff, with costs.2. The appellant is the owner of a Noabad taluk in the District of Chittagong. At the time of the Cadastral Survey operations of 1895, Homar Ali, the father of the respondent, was recorded as holding the tenancy of twoJotes, Nos. 83 and 98, in the survey records. Homar Ali died in 1902, leaving a widow, a son (the respondent) and four daughters.3. In the present suit, which was instituted on April 15, 1920, the appellant seeks to recover from the respondent rent of the year 1326 B.S. (1919-1920) under a kabuliyat dated October 11, 1917, which related to part of Jote No. 83, but it will be necessary to relate ...
Manmatha Nath Mullick Vs. Hedait Ali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR489
Salvesen, J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated December 21, 1928, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which varied a judgment and decree dated June 30, 1927: of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack.2. The facts of the case which are not in dispute may be shortly stated asfollows:- One Nani Mohan Banerji was an owner of two taluks, which may be shortly described as Narendrapur and Krishnapur. These properties were mortgaged for a total sum of Rs. 1,49,000 and the appellant also held two postponed mortgages over the same properties for a sum of Rs. 35,500. On December 9, 1914, Banerji executed a lease of his two taluks in favour of the first defendant. Under this lease the lessee agreed to pay the lessor a yearly rent and, in addition, the Government revenue, cesses and other public demands. The lease also contains the provision that in case of any breach of the covenants to be observed by the lessee he should be liable in damages.3. In 1917 the first mortgagees bro...
Emperor Vs. Pyarelal Gokulprasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR278
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision the accused having been convicted under Section 4(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, Bombay Act IV of 1887, and fined Rs. 80.2. The facts shortly are that Sub-Inspector Sawant gave three marked coins to a man named Bhagvatiprasad and he saw Bhagvatiprasad go into the accused's shop, Bhagvatiprasad says that he went to the shop and made beta with the marked coins on Nos. 4, 6 and 8, that being, I understand, a form of betting on American futures, After Bhagvatiprasad came out of the accused's shop it was raided by the police and two of the marked coins were found in the accused's shop.3. The accused set up a different story as to the way in which he procured the marked coins, but he called do evidence, and the learned Magistrate accepted the evidence of the prosecution and disbelieved the defence evidence. The evidence was not perhaps very strong, but at the same time, in revision, I am not prepared to say that the ...
Gopal Saran NaraIn Singh Vs. Sita Devi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR470
George Lowndes, J.1. The question raised by this appeal is as to the right of the respondent to enforce the terms of a deed dated July 18,1917, by which the appellant purported to grant to her, ' her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns,' a perpetual annuity of Rs. 15,000 charged upon specified immoveable properties. The Subordinate Judge by whom the case was tried held that the deed was unenforceable on various grounds. The High Court came to the opposite conclusion.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted by the respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya. It was founded upon two deeds, both admittedly executed by the appellant. By the first, dated April 16,1913, he purported to settle upon her a life annuity of Rs. 36,000. The second was in the terms set out above, and in effect reduced the life annuity just referred to by Rs. 15, 000 per-annum. The plaintiff claimed a declaration of her rights under the combined deeds and the payment of arrears...
Saiyid Rashid Ahmad Vs. Mussammat Anisa Khatun
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR475
Thankerton, J. 1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, dated February 1, 1927, which reversed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bijnor at Moradabad, dated December 15, 1923.2. The dispute relates to the succession to the estate of Ghiyas-uddin, a Muhammadan, who died on April 4, 1920, leaving considerable moveable and immoveable property.3. The appellants are plaintiffs in the suit, which was instituted on June 28, 1922, and are a brother and sister of Ghiyas-ud-din, and, along with respondents Nos. 10 to 12, who were impleaded as pro forma defendants, would be heirs to Ghiyas-ud-din according to Muhammadan law, if the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 (who were defendants Nos. 1 to 6), are unable to establish their claim to be the widow and legitimate children of Ghiyas-ud-din.4. The main controversy turns on four stages in the matrimonial history of Anis Fatima, respondent No. 1, viz.:(1) her marriage to Manzur Husain in 1901; (2) her divorce by Manzu...
Pyarelal Gokulprasad Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom194; 137Ind.Cas.181
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision the accused having been convicted under Section 4(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, Bombay Act IV of 1887, and fined Rs. 80.2. The facts shortly are that Sub-Inspector Sawant gave three marked coins to a man named Bhagvatiprasad and he saw Bhagvatiprasad go into the accused's shop. Bhagvatiprasad says that he went to the shop and made bets with the marked coins on Nos. 4, 6 and 8, that being, I understand, a form of betting on American futures. After Bhagvatiprasad came out of the accused's shop it was raided by the Police and two of the marked coins were found in the accused's shop.3. The accused set up a different story as to the way in which he procured the marked coins, but he called no evidence, and the learned Magistrate accepted the evidence of the prosecution and disbelieved the the defence evidence. The evidence was not perhaps very strong but at the same time, in revision, I am not prepared to say that the evidenc...
In Re: Chhagan Hargovan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom179; (1932)34BOMLR276; 137Ind.Cas.27
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against the order passed by the Presidency Magistrate, Second Court, directing under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code the applicant to pay a certain amount to his wife for maintenance, and the only point of law which arises is as to whether the learned Magistrate ought to have recorded the evidence. Sub-section (6) of Section 483 provides that the evidence shall be recorded in the manner prescribed in the trial of summons cases. Under Section 355 it is provided that in summons cases tried before a Magistrate other than a Presidency Magistrate a memorandum of the evidence is to be recorded, but as the Magistrate in this case was a Presidency Magistrate Section 355 does not really help. Then Section 362 deals with the case of Presidency Magistrates, and provides that in cases in which no appeallies it shall not be necessary for the Presidency Magistrate to record the evidence or frame a charge. It is quite true that ...
Emperor Vs. Ganu Chandra Kashid
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR303
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by ten accused persons against their convictions for dacoity udner Sections 396 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge of Sholapur. The dacoity took place on January 18, 1931, and the property stolen consisted mostly of cash.2. The prosecution evidence is that about Rs. 1,700 were lost in the dacoity of which the great bulk consisted of one rupee coins though there were a certain number of coins of smaller denomination, A certain amount of other property was also lost, but most of the property was cash. The owner of the house where the dacoity took place, Daryappa, was so injured by the dacoits that he died ten days later.3. The evidence consists in the first place of the story of an approver and the confessions of three accused, viz., Nos. 1, 8 and 9, which story and confessions inculpate all the accused, and we have to look at the evidence against the several accused in order to see whether the story of the approver is corr...
Maruti Ramrao Chandavarkar Vs. Mallapur Shri Gopal Krishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom305; (1932)34BOMLR415
Baker, J.1. These two appeals are cross-appeals arising out of the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Kanara in Appeal No. 19 of 1927 from the decree in Suit No. 488 of 1924 of the Subordinate Judge's Court at Kumta. The arguments in these appeals have occupied a considerable time, but the main points are comparatively restricted. The facts are that the suit was brought in the name of the idol of ShriGopalkrishna Dev of Mallapur by its vahivatdar Shesbgiri against the defendants, who are members of the same family to which the plaintiff before his adoption originally belonged, and the suit prayed for two reliefs. The plaintiff alleged that certain property, which is described in Schedule A of the plaint, situated at Konali in taluka Kumta and consisting of a considerable number of survey numbers, was purchased by the defendants' predecessor Annappa for the God, and that its produce was to be devoted to the upkeep of the idol and its service. As regards the property mentioned ...
Ganu Chandra Kashid Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom286; 137Ind.Cas.174
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by ten accused persons against their convictions for dacoity under Sections 396 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge of Sholapur. The dacoity took place on January 18, 1931, and the property stolen consisted mostly of cash.2. The prosecution evidence is that about Rs. 1,700 were lost in the dacoity of which the great bulk consisted of one rupee coins though there were a certain number of coins of smaller denomination. A certain amount of other property was also lost, but most of the property was cash. The owner of the house where the dacoity took place, Daryappa, was so injured by the dacoits that he died ten days later.3. The evidence consists in the first place of the story of an approver and the confessions of three accused, viz., Nos. 1, 8 and 9, which story and confessions inculpate all the accused, and we have to look at the evidence against the several accused in order to see whether the story of the approver is corroborated, ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »