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.
Ratanbai Vs. Ghashiram Gangabisan Wani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom36; (1931)33BOMLR1092
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover the amount of Rs. 9,296-12-0 as damages for breach of a covenant contained in a sale-deed, Ex. 20, passed by the father of the defendant in favour of the father of the plaintiffs. [His Lordship, after setting out facts, proceeded:]2. On appeal, it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the suit is barred by Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act, and even if Article 97 applied, the cause of action accrued to the plaintiffs on April 7,1916, when the Court in suit No. 212 of 1915 held that the Court purchasers acquired only the right, title and interest of Shankarlal and not the interest of his son Vallabhdas. Secondly, it is urged that Article 96 of the Indian Limitation Act would apply, and the mistake was discovered by the plaintiffs when the suit was decided on April 7,1916. On the merits it is urged that the plaintiffs have not shown that they have suffered any damage, and that as the plaintiffs got a little more t...
Nanjibhai Jethabhai Vs. Popatlal Shriraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR628
Mirza, J.1. The first issue raised in this case is, 'whether the suit is maintainable by reason of the plaint not having been properly signed and filed'. The plaintiff in this case is one Nanjibhai Jethabhai, who is described in the plaint as 'a certified share-broker of the Native Share and Stock Brokers Association carrying on business at Dalai Street within the Fort of Bombay, temporarily residing at Chuda (Kathiawar)'. The plaint is signed by one Nanjibhai Jethabhai by the hand of Bhikhalal Nagardas Munim The verification clause of the plaint is signed by Bhikhalal Nagardas as follows:-I Bhikalal Nagardas of Bombay Hindu inhabitant the Munim of theplaintiff abovenamed residing at Bhuleshwar outside the Fort of Bombay do solemnly declare that what is stated in the above plaint is true to my own knowledge.2. It is conceded by Mr. Taleyarkhan on behalf of the plaintiff that Bhikhalal Nagardas held no general power-of-attorney from the plaintiff which would authorise him to sign the pl...
Pakala Venkanna Vs. Swetachapalati Ramakrishna Ranga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR929
George Lowndes, J.1. The dispute in this appeal is as to the rights of the parties over an irrigation channel known as the Sayanna Batte in the Vizagapatam district of Madras.2. The plaintiff, the respondent before the Board, is the Raja of Bobbili within whose zemindari is situated the village of Regidi which is served by the Sayanna Batte together with other villages dependent upon the same supply. The plaintiff instituted his suit on June 25, 1917, against the appellants who are inamdars of the village of Amidalavalasa. They own 150 acres of cultivated land abutting on the south side of the Sayanna Batte. The Raja claimed a declaration that the appellants had no right to take water from the Sayanna Batte for irrigating their land, and a perpetual injunction.3. The array of defendants originally included also the inamdars of the neighboring village of Rajayavalasa, but on objection that the suit so framed involved a misjoinder of parties, their names were struck off.4. The Sayanna Ba...
Chamava Rachaya Vs. Iraya Sangava Hiremath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1931Bom492
Patkar, J. 1. This is an appeal in execution of the decree in First Appeal No. 04 of 1903 and Suit No. 214 of 1899. 2. Shankaraya and Kalasaya, who had brought a suit against the respondent Iraya, were declared owners of the immovable property in the suit except the three lands which were in the possession of Iraya. On appeal the High Court in First Appeal No. 64 of 1903 on 18th January 1904, amended the decree of the lower Court and directed that the pLalntiffs do recover possession of all the property in dispute from defendant 1, i.e., Iraya, subject to the maintenance of defendant 1, to which the Court declared he was entitled. The Court further directed the lower Court to fix in execution a liberal and suitable allowance as maintenance to defendant 1 having regard to the value and extent of the share of Baslingaya, i.e., the share to which Baslingaya would have been entitled on a partition of the joint estate. There were several applications for execution made by Iraya for determin...
The Municipality of Sholapur Vs. Tuljaram Krishnasa Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1067
Patkar, J.1. This is an application by the Sholapur Municipality against the order of the learned District Judge of Sholapur purporting to act under Section 198 of the Bombay City Municipalities Act, XVIII of 1925, and directing the Sholapur Municipality to pay compensation for 2997 square feet at the rate of Rs. 1-12-0 per square foot to opponent No. 1 Tuljaram Krishnasa alone, and holding that opponent No. 2 Gangappa Sangappa's mortgage was vitiated by the doctrine of lis pendens, inasmuch as he took the mortgage with notice of a prior agreement by the owner with Tuljaram during the pendency of a suit by the latter.2. Opponent No. 1 Tuljaram was the owner of the land in suit, and demanded compensation from the Municipality for the land encroached upon by the Municipality at the rate of Rs. 2-8-0 per square foot. The Chief Officer with the consent of the Managing Committee referred the matter to arbitration under Section 198, Sub-section (1), of the Bombay City Municipalities Act, 192...
The Assistant Collector, South Salsette Vs. Shapurji Cawasji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1210
Murphy, J.1. delivered a judgment dealing with the merits of the case.Beaumont C.J.2. In this case it has been argued that the question of costs is governed by Section 27(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. That argument involves this, that the words in Sub-section (2).When the award of the Collector is not upheld, the costs shall ordinarily be paid by the Collector.governs the whole proceedings, both in the Court of first instance and in any subsequent Courts of appeal. I think that is not the right view. I think Section 27(2) is limited to the proceedings in the Court of first instance. The word ' upheld ' would not be applicable to any other Court except the Court of first instance, because that is the only Court in which the question of upholding the Collector's award arises, and in any other Court the question would be as to whether the decision of the lower Court and not of the Collector should be upheld. Moreover, the claimant's argument would give rise to this singular result that ...
The Assistant Collector, South Salsette Vs. Sahpurji Cawasji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1931
Reported in: 136Ind.Cas.173
Beaumont, C.J.1. In this case it has been argued that the question of costs is governed by Section 27 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. That argument involves this that the words in Sub-section. (2)When the award of the Collector is not upheld, the costs shall ordinarily be paid by the Collector,2. govern the whole proceedings both in the Court of first instance and in any subsequent Courts of Appeal. I think that is not the right view. I think Section 27 (2) is limited to the proceedings in the Court of first instance. The word 'upheld' would not be applicable to any other Court except the Court of first instance, because that is the only Court in which the question of upholding the Collector's award arises, and in any other Court the question would be as to whether the decision of the lower Court and not of the Collector should be upheld. Moreover, the claimant's argument would give rise to this singular result that if a Collector makes an award which is varied and not upheld in the D...
Ramnarayan Premsukhdas Vs. Ganesh Ghasiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR804
Madgavkar, J.1. The petitioner is a member of the East India Cotton Association at Bombay, the opponents non members in Dhulia, There was a hedge contract between the parties which is not in writing. The petitioner sued upon it in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, and the opponents subsequently brought a suit against the petitioner in Dhulia, which has been stayed. The Court of Small Causes held that bye-law 81 applied, that the hedge contract in question was not in writing, that the petitioner was not entitled to sue and dismissed the plaint. The petitioner has obtained a rule in revision.2. It is argued on his behalf that bye-law 80 applies and not bye-law 81, under bye-law SO hedge contracts may be verbal and the decision of the Court of Small Causes was, therefore, wrong; and, secondly, that the opponents having themselves brought a suit in Dhulia cannot both approbate and reprobate, and must be taken to admit the contract; and it need not, therefore, be in writing. It is conten...
Emperor Vs. Sadanand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR652
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the accused was charged with having, on November 9, 1930, edited, printed and published articles entitled 'Helping Outlaws' and 'Cease the Trade' in his paper the Free Press Journal and thereby assisted the War Council of the Bombay Provincial Congress Committee in its operations and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 17(1) of the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908. The accused was convicted in respect of the first article entitled 'Helping Outlaws', which is Exhibit A1 in the case, and from that conviction he appeals, and the Crown has applied for enhancement of the sentence passed. He was acquitted in respect of the other article entitled 'Cease the Trade', which is Ex, A2, and from that acquittal the Government appeal.2. Upon the first appeal the prosecution have to prove, I think, three things. First of all, that the War Council, which is the association alleged to be unlawful and alleged to have been assisted, is in f...
Bhagvandas Dahyabhai Vs. Mansukhlal Bhagvandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR802
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the deed and its counterpart (Exhibits 39-1 and 39-2) of April 3, 1926, between the plaintiff-respondent Mansukhlal and his father, defendant No. 1 Bhagvandas, required registration under Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act. The trial Court held that they did; the District Court held that they did not. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 appeal.The question in this case must depend on the language and construction of the documents in question. In the case of these documents, first of all, these are documents entered into by defendant No. 1 and plaintiff; next each agreed that the son on the one hand 'if he receives certain property agrees to give up his claim to the rest for himself and Bapulal, sons of the defendant.' The father equally agrees to get the former properties transferred to the son's name and to execute in writing any legal document that may be necessary. Possession was not given. And in these circumstances we agree with the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »