Mumbai Court February 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.
Pandurang Pundlik Shanbhag Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Bom411
Madgavkar, J. 1. This is an application by accused 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 against the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sirsi Division, Kanara, confirmed in appeal by the District Magistrate, forfeiting the recognizance bonds of the petitioners. 2. The relevant facts are as follows: A complaint was filed against the petitioners and others Under Section 504, I.P.C., at Honavar by the toddy licensee of that place in the Court of the Town Magistrate of Honavar on 18th July 1930. Process was issued. They were arrested and brought before the Magistrate and were released on bail. On 22nd July the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sirsi Division, transferred the case to his own file, purporting apparently to follow the general directions of the District Magistrate in regard to a certain class of cases. On 25th July, although the accused were released on bail, they applied Under Section 526, Criminal P.C., for an adjournment on the ground that they wished to move the High Court for a transfer. The l...
Gustasp Behram Irani Vs. Bhagvandas Sobharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Bom554
Patkar, J. 1. (After recounting the facts stated above, his Lordship proceeded:) We are concerned in this appeal with regard to the item of Rs. 513-5-9, costs awarded by the High Court in the application for leave to sue. The learned Subordinate Judge disallowed the contention of the appellant who was a discharged insolvent and allowed execution to proceed. It is contended in this appeal that the decree is a nullity as the High Court in allowing the leave ordered the costs of the application to be tacked on to the mortgage debt due to the respondent by the estate of the said insolvent, and that a personal decree with respect to the costs of the application ought not to have been passed. This objection ought to have been raised by the appellant defendant in the suit. He did not raise that contention and the decree was passed against him and must be executed as it stands. Further, the order passed in the application for leave to sue does not necessarily preclude the Court from passing a ...
Manilal Lallubhai Patel Vs. Kikabhai Lallubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1118
Baker, J.1. The point raised in this case is one of law, and one of some difficulty if it were not that it had been very recently dealt with by a bench of which I was a member. The facts are that the parties are neighbours. In 1916 the present appellants brought a suit against one Lallubhai and his son Kikabhai with respect to certain easements. The suit was dismissed. In 1922 Lallubhai filed the present suit against the defendants claiming certain rights in respect of the same house. His son Kikabhai was not a party to the suit. The suit was compromised, and under the compromise decree each party was bound to perform certain acts and to make certain alterations in pursuance of the compromise. Lallubhai died, and the present appellants sought to execute the decree against his son Kikabhai. The remedy sought is not a personal one, but refers only to certain alterations to be made in the house. Kikabhai objected that he was not the legal representative of his father so far as the propert...
Jatindra Nath Chowdhury Vs. Uday Kumar Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR940
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the High Court of Calcutta in a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover rent. There is also before their Lordships a petition by the defendant in two former appeals before this Board to reform the Order in Council then made on the ground that it does not give effect to the intention of their Lordships as expressed in their judgment. These are the latest incidents in a series of legal proceedings which, owing mainly to the fault of the parties, have not had entirely satisfactory results. It will be necessary to state in outline so much of the previous history of the case as must be known to elucidate the present issue between the parties. In 1878 the predecessor in title to the plaintiff granted a lease to the predecessor of the defendant of a considerable portion of the land estimated at about 4,000 bighas. The land was mainly uncultivated; the tenant was to bring it into cultivation I within three years. For that perio...
Chaturbhujdas Parmanandas Vs. Natvarlal Tribhovandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1109
Baker, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Broach refusing to take proceedings against the opponent for contempt of Court. The preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies.2. The facts are that in the course of a suit the plaintiffs presented an application to the Court stating that a large aura was due to them from the defendants' firm, that defendant No. 5, who was one of the partners in the firm, had already mortgaged some of his properties and was making arrangements to sell others of them to some other persons, and praying for an order for the attachment of defendant No. 5's 'below-mentioned' immoveable properties before judgment. On this application the defendant stated that he had no intention to sell the property, and gave an undertaking not to sell the same till the disposal of the suit. On this undertaking being given, the Judge passed the following order on January 12, 1927:-Defendants undertake not ...
Maya Ookeda Vs. Kuverji Kurpal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom338; (1932)34BOMLR649
Blackwell, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs and defendant No. 11 formerly carried on business in Bombay in the firm name of Maya Ookedaand Co. On January 28, 1927, the firm of Kurpal Doongersey and Co. passed three hundis in favour of the firm of Maya Ookedaand Co., each for a sum of Rs 10,000 payable on May 28, 1927. Those hundis have been put in before me as Ex. B, and it has not been disputed that the firm of Kurpal Doongerseyand Co. passed those hundies for valuable consideration, and that they did not pay them on the due date or at all. The present suit is brought against the surviving partners of the firm of Kurpal Doongerseyand Co., and the heirs and legal representatives of persons who were partners at the time that the hundis were passed, but who are since deceased. Defendant No. 11 was joined as a defendant, because, although he was a member of the firm of Maya Ookedaand Co., he refused to join as a plaintiff in the suit No relief is claimed against him.2. Defendants Nos. 3 a...
Valluri Ramanamma Vs. Marina Viranna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR960
George Lowndes, J.1. In 1916 the appellant was entitled to certain immoveable properties of considerable value, which had devolved upon her as her mother's stridhan. They were withheld from her by her brother, who was apparently a man of position and influence. Attempts had been made to settle the claim, but nothing was effected, and the period of limitation was approaching. It was accordingly decided that a suit must be instituted. The appellant was then twenty-one years of age and her husband, Pattabhiramaya, was twenty-three or twenty-four. His father, Sattayya, was elderly and in bad health, and was not prepared to take an active part in the litigation. Under these circumstances it was thought desirable to secure the assistance of the respondent, the brother-in-law of the appellant's husband, who was an older and more experienced man, and of considerable wealth, He was quite willing to assist gratuitously, but it was considered advisable that he should have a personal stake in the ...
Ganpati Gopal Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-13-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1039
Madgavkar, J.1. These appeals, with the cross-appeals and the cross-objections, arise out of disputes between certain khots of Kolaba and Government in the same suits which were decided in part by this Court in Ganpati Gopal v. Secretary of State I.L.R. (1024) Bom. 599 26 Bom. L.R. 754. This judgment in the present appeals must be read as a continuation of that judgment, deciding as it does the question left open there for trial, as to the damages due to the khots from Government during the years when the villagea were in Japti by reason of the refusal of the khots to accept a new form of kabulayat containing in part clauses which this Court in that judgment held illegal. We are now concerned with sixty-five appeals by Government in many of which the khots have filed cross-appeals and cross-objections and with two appeals by the khots in one of which Government have filed cross-objections. These appeals are shown in the tables 1 to 6 attached to this judgment. The suits were not consol...
Sadashivappa Gangappa Vs. Sangappa Chanvirappa Mahamadkoti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1033
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants against the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge, Bijapur, in favour of the plaintiff-respondent declaring that the decree in suit No. 184 ol 1916 was not binding on the plaintiff-respondent.2. The relevant facts are shortly as follows. On September 22, 1903, the deceased Chanvirappa, father of the plaintiff-respondent, and one Mahalingappa Katti purchased certain land under a registered sale-deed. It is the case for the defendants-appellants that Chanvirappa was benami for themselves, that the money came from the appellants' father Gangappa in a shop in which both had a certain interest. In 1916 the appellants' father Gangappa brought a suit No. 184 of 1916, impleading as defendants No. 1 the uncle of the present plaintiff-respondent, No. 2 his cousin, No, 3 being the plaintiff-respondent himself by his mother Madivalava as guardian, No. 4 being the auction-purchaser Mahalingapppa. The plaintiff-respondent was then, even accor...
Krishna Rao Vs. Sundara Siva Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR937
Thankerton, J.1. This appeal relates to the succession to the immovable property of the late Krishna Rao, a Brahmin and a Karnam, who died on April 20, 1913, without issue, but leaving a widow.2. The suit was instituted on December 16, 1918, by Kruttiventi Surayya, who admittedly is the nearest reveraioaer to the estates after the death of the widow, against the widow, as defendant No. 1, Vempati Satyanarayanamurti, as defendant No. 2, and other defendants, who wore the purchasers under two deeds of sale and the mortgagee under a mortgage deed executed by defendant No. 2 in the years 1914 and 1916. Defendant No. 2 is now dead, and is represented by the appellant.3. A few months before his death the late Krishna Rao, while he was ill, executed a document in favour of defendant No. 2, who was a son of his wife's sister, and whom he had brought up. The material part of that document (Exhibit I), which is dated December 16, 1912, is as follows:-As I have had no issue I have brought you up ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »