Mumbai Court December 1931 Judgments
Sundrabai Hanmantrao Kulkarni Vs. Hanmant Gurunath Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom398; (1932)34BOMLR802; 140Ind.Cas.235
Jonh Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge at Dharwar, and the question which arises on the appeal is as to the validity amongstDeshastha Smarta Brahmins in the Dharwar District of an adoption of a daughter's son. The question arises in this way. OneHanmant was the owner of certain watan lands, and he died leaving a widow Sundrabai, who is defendant No. 1. In 1914Sundrabai adopted one Narayan, who was her daughter's son. Narayan died in 1917, and on November 16,1923, Sundrabai. adopted or purported to adopt defendant No. 2, who in point of fact is Nara-yan's father. Now, if the original adoption of Narayan was valid, it is not disputed that Sundrabai, as the mother of the lastwatandar, would not be entitled to adopt again in respect of watan lands, and therefore the adoption of defendant No. 2 would be invalid, and it is again not disputed that the vatan lands in that event would belong to plantiffs Nos. 1 and 2 as the heirs of...
Tag this Judgment!The New Mofussil Company Limited Vs. Rustomji Dhanjisha Mewawala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1931
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR408
Rangnekar, J.1. [His Lordship after narrating the facts went on :] At an early stage of the hearing, Mr, Munshi, on behalf of the defendant, gave up the issue as to jurisdiction. In the course of the further hearing he gave up his contention as regards the New Mahaloo Ginning Factory not being a party to the new pool, and finally he stated that he did not dispute the figures as to the amount claimed.2. Before dealing with the issues it is necessary to know what the agreement between the parties is, its nature, and the constitution of the pool. This can be found from the correspondence between the parties and from the agreement in question. It is common ground that there was a pooling agreement for the cotton season of 1929-30 and it formally came to an end in September, 1930, though virtually in about July, 1930. It is also common ground that cotton season begins from October 17 or 19 and lasts up to the following July. The pooling agreement is spoken of in the correspondence sometimes...
Tag this Judgment!Raj Kumar Sen Chowdhury Vs. Ram Sundar Shaha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR526
John Wallis, J.1. Disputes about the dispositions and contracts of people of advanced age and failing powers are always difficult cases to decide, and the difficulty is greatly increased when, as in the present case, the record has swollen to enormous size owing to the way in which the examination of the witnesses on commission was protracted, assuredly not in the interests of the parties. A scandalous instance of this abuse is to be found, as observed by the learned Judges of the High Court, in the examination of Ananda Roy, the principal witness for the plaintiffs, which takes up two hundred and twenty-six pages of the record, and contains twelve hundred and fifty questions and answers, most of which, as admitted at the trial by the vakils on both sides, were quite irrelevant to the suit.2. In another appeal with an enormous record from the same High Court it was recently stated that the cross-examination on commission of a purdahanashin lady lasted for a hundred days. In their Lords...
Tag this Judgment!Mohammad Ejaz HusaIn Vs. Mohammad Iftikhar Husain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR528
Lancelot Sanderson, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in the suit against a judgment and two decrees of the Chief Court of Oudh, dated October 18,1928, which reversed the decree of the Subordinate Judge dated January 17, 1928, as amended by his order dated March 8, 192i8.2. The suit was brought by Mohammad Ejaz Husain and his sister Khaliq-un-nisa against their lull and half-brothers and sisters, their mother Faiyaz-un-nisa, and Hamid-un-nisa, the wife of Amir Hasan, defendant No. 4.3. The relationship between the parties to the suit appears from the pedigree which was attached to the judgment of the Chief Court, and which is as follows.4. The suit was brought for a declaration that an agreement dated March 25, 1912, and an award dated April 2, 1912, were null and void and inoperative, and for a partition of certain properties alleged to have been the properties of the plaintiffs' father, Mohammad Husain.5. The learned Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit; made a decree in the...
Tag this Judgment!Faqir Chand Vs. Aziz Ahmad Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR760
George Lowndes, J.1. This appeal is concerned with a tangle of mortgages made over a number of years by one Jamil ul Rahman. He owned or had interests in a variety of immove-able properties which were scattered over the different transactions. Some have been brought to sale by one mortgagee or another; some have been redeemed by puisne mortgagees for the protection of their own interests, and subsequently transferred to other parties subject to the rights of prior incumbrancers; in some cases arrangements have been made as to the contribution due by the purchaser of this or that property; but no final settlement as between all the parties concerned has ever been come to either in or out of Court.2. The mortgage with which the present proceedings are directly concerned was dated September 23, 1899. It was the sixth in the series in order of date and comprised ten different properties, eight of which were also included in one or other of prior or subsequent mortgages.3. In 1911 the mortg...
Tag this Judgment!Ghulam Mohammad Vs. Ghulam Hussain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR510
George Lowndes,J. 1. One Khadim Husain, a Mahomedan governed by the law of the Hanafi school, died on August21, 1901. Two days before his death he made a will in the following terms:-I, Shaikh Khadim Husain, son of Munshi Arnan Ullah, deceased, resident jagirdar and taluqdar of Ganeshpur, district Basti, declare as follows :-I own and possess movable and immovable property of every description (such as) houses, groves, etc, in the districts of Basti, Gorakhpur and Fyzabad, and it is in my possession and enjoyment as a proprietor without the participation of anyone else. The immovable propertyconsists of three kinds of property : One is that which is meant for maintenance of disciples and female slaves (under a Will, dated September 25, 1866, my father, Maulvi Shaikh Aman Ullah, deceased, gave (this property) to me alone. This property which he had, under a Will, dated June 13, 1837, got from his father for maintenance of the disciples and the female slaves as proprietor, is thepanchmi ...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Tatyasaheb Yeshwantrao ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom386; (1932)34BOMLR791; 140Ind.Cas.171
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Joint Judge of Thana. The plaintiff, the Secretary of State for India, claims the re-payment of a sum of Rs. 37,000 and odd as money paid under a mistake, which, it is alleged, was discovered in 1922.2. The moneys were paid in respect of a claim by the defendant under the Land Acquisition Act, and the facts giving rise to the claim were these. In the year 1803 the East India Company made a grant to one Luke Ashburner of certain lands inBhandup village and other villages. In the year 1817 Luke Ashburner sold his estate to Cawasjee Manekjee. In the year 1838 Cawasjee Manekjee applied to the Government for a grant of certain other lands, and the Collector recommended to the Government that a grant should be made and in 1843 a grant was made, although the actual document is net now forthcoming. In the year 1879 there was an administration suit in this High Court in respect of the estate of one Cursetjee Cawaejee, who was...
Tag this Judgment!Pirojshaw R. Vakharia Vs. Bandealli Ismail and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom631; (1932)34BOMLR1378
Rangneker, J.1. This case raises a question of some importance which, counsel tell me, is not covered by authority. The question is, whether when a person in Bombay instructs another person in Bombay to effect a contract of sale or purchase of cotton in New York or Liverpool, that transaction is subject to and governed by the Bombay Cotton Contracts Act, XIV of 1922, and the by-laws made thereunder. Another question of importance which is raised in this case is, whether when a contract of the kind referred to in question No. 1 is made subject to the rules of the New York Cotton Exchange or the rules of the Liverpool Cotton Association Limited, the arbitration and award thereunder are a condition precedent to the institution of a suit in a Court of law for determination of the disputes between the parties.2. There is no dispute as regards the main facts in the case. The plaintiffs are carrying on business in Bombay as merchants and commission agents and are members of the East Indian Co...
Tag this Judgment!Narsingrao Shrinivasrao Desai Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom226; (1932)34BOMLR453
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Dharwar. The plaintiff was a hereditary Desai and held lands which were confirmed by a sanad of 1864, That sanad, which is Exhibit 47, provides:-It is hereby declared that the said lands and cash allowances shall be continued Hereditarily by the British Government on the following conditions, that is to say, that the said holders and their hairs shall continue faithful subjects of the British Government and shall render the same certain dues.2. On September 27, 1922, the Commissioner, Southern Division, on behalf of the Government made an order forfeiting the plaintiff's sanad on the ground that he had ceased to be a faithful subject of the British Government. The plaintiff brings this suit, in which, by amendment as the learned Judge explains, he now asks for a declaration that the forfeiture is illegal and ultra vires.3. The learned Judge dismissed the suit. He held that the plaintiff had ceased t...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Chandra Gajapati Vs. Challa Ramanna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR508
Viscount Dunedin, J. 1. This case is in a curiously unsatisfactory position. The plaintiff in it is the Zamindar of Parlakimedi in his capacity as trustee for two Gods. The defendants are the occupying tenants of the village of Kosamala, 183 in number. The only relief asked in the plaint was as follows:-(a) For a declaration that the settlement of the Mokhasa Amaniya village of Kosamala made in orabout 1869 by the Court of Wards acting on behalf of the Plaintiff's late grandfather, the then Trustee of the Gods Sri Kamaswami and SriJagannadhaswami of Parlakimedi, and continued since about 1869, by which the said village has been annually leased out at a money-rent determined according to fixed block-rates, is beyond the powers of a Trustee and is not binding on the Plaintiff, who is the present Trustee of the said Gods;(b) For a declaration that the Plaintiff as the present Trustee of the said Gods is entitled to claim rent in kind from the Defendants in respect of their holdings in the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »