Mumbai Court March 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.
Motibhai Somabhai Patel Vs. Dahyabhai Morar Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1211
John Beaumont, C.J.1. The only question which has been argued in this appeal and the only question on which it is necessary to express an opinion is a very short one. The land in suit was admittedly bhagdari land prior to 1874. In the year 1874 that land was alienated and it is not disputed that the alienation was void under Section 3 of the Bhagdari Act (Bom, Act V of 1862).2. The land, however, has not been restored to the original owner, as it might have been, by the Collector under the powers conferred upon him by Section 3 of the Act. The question raised in the appeal is whether the land in the hands of the persons who acquired it, whatever their interest may be, under the void alienation of 1874, is subject to the customs affecting bhagdari land or is free from those customs. The appellants contend that it is free from the customs, the particular custom relevant to their case being a custom as to the succession of bhagdari land. On the face of it the proposition contended for by ...
Bal Krishna Vs. Ram Krishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1280
George Lowndes, J.1. The suit out of which these consolidated appeals arise was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Banda on June 26, 1923, by one Lal Man, praying for a partition of joint family properties.2. The family of which he claimed to be an undivided member consisted originally of himself and his three brothers, Kanhaiya Lal, Hazari Lal and Gulzari Lal, Lal Man being the eldest of the four and the karta of the family, They were admittedly governed by the Mitakshara law. The properties of which partition was claimed consisted mainly of the assets of a family money-lending business, and certain houses and land.3. Kanhaiya Lal died some time prior to 1907, and Hazari Lal in 1908, but their stocks were adequately represented by their sons. Gulzari Lal died childless in 1920. Lal Man was the last survivor of the brothers and claimed by his plaint to be entitled to a one-third share of the family properties. He had no male issue, but only sons of a daughter, who woul...
Emperor Vs. Vadilal Devchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR663
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of Vadilal who was charged under Section 61 (f) of the Bombay District Police Act, IV of 1890.2. The facts are short and simple. In the city of Ahmedabad, there is a public street and a highway along which, on the south, Vadilal and other dealers in brass and copper utensils have their shops. On the first five days of the new year at Divali it has been customary for him and for other shopkeepers there to bring out their wares on to the public road, and we are informed by the learned counsel for Vadilal, that it is considered auspicious by Hindus to purchase new vessels on these days. The result is a crowd which caused detriment to the traffic on the southern side of the street. There had been general notices by the District Magistrate; Ahmedabad, against the user of streets for fairs and such purposes. Years ago, the Municipality instituted prosecutions similar to the present but subsequently withdrew t...
Gadadhar KA.Kaji Gore Vs. Gangaram Tatya Mhaske
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR825
Broomfield, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit to redeem an alleged mortgage by ostensible sale executed by the plaintiff's father in 1900. The plaintiff desired to rely on the provisions of Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and in order to do so it was necessary to show that he was an agriculturist as defined in the first part of Section 2 of the Act either at the date of the suit or at the date of the transaction (see Sultan Rahim v. Ran-chhod Mulji ILR (1926) 51 Bom. 224, 29 Bom. L.R. 249. It was admitted that at the date of the suit he was not an agriculturist but was earning his living in a tea shop. At the time of the transaction he was a child of two or three years of age maintained by his father who was an agriculturist.2. The only issue for determination in this appeal is, whether under the circumstances the plaintiff can be described as having been an agriculturist at that time. The definition is ' 'Agriculturist' shall be taken to mean a person who hims...
Mir Hassan Ali Mir Abdul Alli Vs. Sanli Begum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1139
Baker, J.1. This is an appeal against an order in execution proceedings made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nasik ordering the property in dispute to be attached. The facts of this case are a little complicated. The original plaintiff who is now dead and represented by his grandmother and his uncle obtained a decree in the High Court in suit No. 250 of 1906 against his uncles and his aunt with respect to the property of his grandfather Mir Abdul Ali who died in 1905. The original plaintiff Afsarali was the son of Sarfrazali who was the eldest son of Abdul Ali. The decree declared that the defendants as heirs and legal representatives of the said Mir Abdul Ali were liable for certain amounts. The plaintiff sought to execute this decree against the estate of his grandfather in the hands of the present defendant No. 2 Mir Hasanali Abdul Ali by darkhast No. 188 of 1917 which was presented in the Ahmednagar Court against certain property in the possession of the defendant in the Ah...
Allisaheb Isamohadinsaheb Vs. Shesho Govind Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1238
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the F. C. Subordinate Judge of Dharwar. The appeal is presented by defendants Nos. 6, 7, 1, 2, 3 and 5, but Mr. Coyajee who appears for the appellants has abandoned all the points, except two which affect defendant No. 6, and those points arise in this way. In 1871 there was a mortgage of properties by Hayatmir I, who appears in the pedigree set out in the judgment of the trial Court. Hayatmir I died in 1872, and in 1873 his son Hussain created a second mortgage in favour of the same mortgagee, and in 1879 there was another mortgage to the same mortgagee and the mortgagee was put in possession of the property. Hussain died in 1890 leaving four sons and a daughter. Two of the sons Hayatmir II and Ibrahim died in 1906. In the year 1907 the other two sons Abu and Mohadin created a mortgage of the lands in favour of defendant No. 6 and to that mortgage I will refer more in detail presently. That is Exhibit 82. In 1909 the two son...
Nadirshaw J. Vachha Vs. the Times of India Employees Death Benefit Fun ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR720
Beaumont. C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Mirza arising in certain execution proceedings. The appellant-plaintiff is a creditor of a deceased gentleman named Hormasji Bhabha who was employed in the Times of India newspaper office and the defendants in the suit are his executors. On November 6, 1929, the plaintiff obtained a decree for a money payment against the defendants as executors of Hormasji Bhabha. On September 24, 1930, the plaintiff applied for attachment, on September 26 a warrant for attachment was issued, and on October 6 a garnishee notice was issued to the Treasurer and Secretary of the Times of India Employees Death Benefit Fund.2. Now the whole question is whether the interest of the deceased Hormasji Bhabha in the Times of India Employees Death Benefit Fund is an interest which can be attached by his creditors. In order to answer that question one has to look at the rules governing that fund which have been marked as Ex. A to an affidavit made b...
Hari Sabaji Kamat Vs. Shrinivas Vithal Pai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1130
Madgavkar, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against the judgment of Mr. Justice Baker, reversing the decree of the two Courts below and dismissing the plaintiff's suit with coats. The question in both the appeals is whether the attachment of the defendants-respondents was subsisting on the date of the purchase by the plaintiff-appellant from the judgment-debtor. The property in all comprised twelve survey numbers. Out of these, a third party had obtained a decree and attachment in respect of seven. The defendants-respondents had obtained attachment before judgment in respect of twelve survey numbers in a suit, which ended in a decree in their favour in 1906. In 1909 the other decree-holder Dattatraya had applied to attach and sell seven out of the survey numbers, and by darkhast No. 49 of 1909 by the defendants in execution of this decree the respondents applied for two reliefs, firstly, for rateable distribution under Section 73, Civil Procedure Code, in respect of the ...
Kacharabhai Lehrabhai Vs. Kacharabhai Vadilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR818
Madgavkar, J.1. Vadilal Maganlal, the father of the respondent, obtained a decree against the appellant and brought a darkhast in execution on November 11, 1929. During the pendency of the darkhast he died on June 12, 1930. His heir and legal representative, the respondent Kacharabhai Vadilal, applied to be brought on the record to continue the darkhast proceedings. The judgment-debtor, appellant, opposed, but was unsuccessful. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the heir to proceed with the darkhast. The judgment-debtor appeals. 2. The appellant relies on Order XXI, Rule 16, and the decision of the Madras High Court in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Valliammai Achi ILR (1926) Mad. 13. The respondent invites our attention to a recent decision in Sailendra Nath Ghose v. Surendra Nath De 34 C.W.N. 437 and the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Jang Bahadur v. Bank of Upper India, Ld. (1928) L.R. 55 IndAp 227 : 30 Bom, L.R. 1373 Cases such as Ganpaya v. Krishnappa : AIR1924...
Channappa Basappa UppIn Vs. Yellappa Venkappa Anegundi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR820
Broomfield, J.1. Respondent No. 1 Yellappa obtained a money decree against respondent No 2 Fakirappa in June 1926. In execution of this decree Fakirappa was arrested on February 7, 1927. He expressed his intention to apply to be declared an insolvent and the appellant Channappa stood surety for him and executed a security bond in accordance with the terms of Section 55, Clause (4), of the Civil Procedure Code, engaging that the judgment-debtor would apply to be declared an insolvent within fifteen days and that he would appear when called upon in any proceedings upon the application or upon the decree under execution. Within fifteen days, that is to say on February 21, 1927, Fakirappa did make an application, but it appears that it did not contain all the particulars required by Section 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, and it was ultimately rejected on that ground on July 23, 1927. The order passed on that occasion was, 'Mr. Pirzade for the applicant admits that this application is...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »