Mumbai Court April 1931 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Ramchandra Narayan Shastri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1169
Mirza, J.1. The applicants were convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Karwar Town, of offences under Sections 188 and 145, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment for each offence, the sentences to run concurrently. The applicants preferred an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Kanara, against their convictions and sentences. The Sessions Judge set aside the convictions and sentences under Section 188, Indian Penal Code, but confirmed the convictions and sentences under Section 145, Indian Penal Code, and reduced sentences of several of them. The applicants have applied in revision against the order of the Sessions Judge.2. The prosecution against the applicants arose out of a notification promulgated on November 5, 1930, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirsi Prant, under Section 42 of the Bombay District Police Act. The Magistrate prohibited in the Municipal area of Honavar for a period of fourteen days from the date of the notification the public utteran...
Tag this Judgment!Manmohan Das Vs. Ramdei
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1251
Macmillan, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the High Court of Allahabad reversing a decree of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Allahabad.2. The question at issue is whether a deed of gift dated August 2, 1919, and executed by Behari Lal, respondent No. 2, in favor of his wife, Musammat Eamdei, respondent No. 1, represented a genuine transaction or was fictitious and benami. The Subordinate Judge found that the transaction was benami. The High Court held that it was genuine. Their Lordships have now to determine which of these two decisions was right.3. The circumstances which have given rise to the action may be briefly summarised. It appears that the respondent Behari Lal and his brother Lala Gaza Prasad at one time owned in its entirety a house, No. 15, situated in Chowk, Allahabad. Some time previous to the date of the deed of gift under challenge the eight annas share of Lala Gaza Prasad was purchased by the plaintiffs, Lala Madho Prasad and his son Lala Manmohan Das a...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Vithoba Naik Vs. Mahableshwar Doda Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-15-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1234
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act from the Small Causes Court at B, and the question raised is an interesting point of law arising under the Indian Limitation Act. The suit is against the sons of the original debtor, the liability sought to be imposed being in respect of the pious obligation of a Hindu son to pay his father's debts, The question which arises is from what period the Indian Limitation Act runs as against the son, and which Article of the Act applies.2. Now the facts are that on June 13, 1923, the father gave a promissory note for Rs. 130 odd with interest, On June 1, 1926, the father repaid part of the money owing and acknowledged that on that date Rs. 100 was owing on the promissory note. The effect of that acknowledgment was, at any rate as against the father, to start a fresh period of limitation running from June 1, 1926. The father died in June 1928, and on June 1, 1929, the last date on which a suit...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Sakharam Saraf Vs. Narayan Shriram Mulaye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1144
Patkar, J.1. This is an appeal in execution of a decree for injunction obtained against the deceased father of appellant No. 1 restraining him from tethering his cattle in the western half of a cattle-shed.2. The plaintiff-respondent obtained a consent decree in suit No. 455 of 1895 against Sakharam, the deceased father of appellant No. 1 and grandfather of appellants Nos. 2 to 4, restraining him from tethering his cattle and storing fodder in the balekhani, i.e., cattle-shed marked red in the plan, Exhibit 43, After the death of Sakharam the respondent gave a darkhast alleging that the appellants tethered cattle and stored fodder in the cattle-shed, and sought execution of the decree obtained against Sakharam.3. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed execution against the appellants as the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor Sakharam according to the decision in Sakarlal v. Bai Parvati-bai I.L.R. (1901) Bom. 283 4 Bom. L.R. 14 On appeal, the learned District Judge, after sendi...
Tag this Judgment!Saraju Bala Debi Vs. Jyotirmoyee Debi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1257
Dinshah Mulla, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Calcutta affirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca.2. The question for their Lordships' consideration is whether on a true construction of three leases executed by Raja Kali Narayan Roy Chowdhury in favour of his daughter Kripamoyee Debi she took an absolute estate or an estate for life. Both the Courts in India agreed in holding that she took an absolute estate of inheritance which she could dispose of by deed or will.3. All the three leases are described as miras talukdari puttas and putni talukdari puttas, The words 'miras talukdari putta' imply a permanent and heritable estate. The words 'putni talukdari putta' import a permanent heritable estate subject to a fixed rent. The leases comprised properties forming part of the Raja's zemindari estate.4. The first lease was executed on March 22, 1865. It begins with a description of the properties and after reciting the annual income thereof proceeds ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagvan Gokul Ji and Co. Vs. Balku Babaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom1; (1931)33BOMLR1291; 136Ind.Cas.497
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Sub-ordinate Judge of Thana. At the trial the learned Judge framed the first issue in these terms--Is the suit bad for misjoinder of causes of action against different persona? and he answered that issue in the affirmative and dismissed the action without considering the merits.2. In dealing with the preliminary issue, one must, of course, assume that the facts stated in the plaint are correct and see whether on that basis the plaintiff has a cause of action.3. Now, the material facts are these--The plaintiffs and respondent No. 2 were partners at the material dates. There were other persons also in the partnership, but that is immaterial. Defendant No, 2 was the managing partner, and on June 2, 1924, he agree 1 on behalf of the firm to sell certain land belonging to the firm to respondent No. 1 and he entered the transaction in the books of the firm as being a contract to sell these lands to respondent No. 1 for Rs. 9,000. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Burjorji Jivanji Todywalla Vs. Hormusji Nowroji Davar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom394; (1932)34BOMLR643
Blackwell, J.1. This case originally came before me on April 2, 1931. It is a suit to recover a sum of money alleged to be due on a promissory note with interest at one per cent, per mensem. The plaint alleges that on May 10, 1929, the plaintiff lent and advanced to the defendants the sum of Rs.2,50 but there is no cause of action whatever based upon the loan. As appears clear from the latter part of paragraph 1 and from paragraph 3, the only cause of action relied upon in this plaint is the cause of action upon the promissory note.2. Two written statements were filed. In both of them the point is taken that the promissory note is improperly stamped, and as such is inadmissible in evidence. Apart from that, the written statement of defendant No. 1 alleges that no consideration passed for the promissory note, and that he was made by the plaintiff to put his signature to the promissory note, which had already been previously executed by defendant No. 2, who is the son of defendant No. 1 ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Radhibai Rupji Sunderji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR864
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is a reference which has been made to me by the Taxing Master under Section 5 of the Court-fees Act, and the question is whether a judgment-debt which formed part of the deceased's estate ought to be included in the application for probate at its face value, or at the amount which it is estimated to produce. The face value of the judgment-debt is Rs. 10,000, but, according to the applicant, the chances of recovering that amount are remote and he estimates the sum likely to be recovered at Rs. 500.2. Under schedule III of the Court-fees Act of 1870, there is a form of solemn affirmation for obtaining probate, and in the annexture to that form are set out various heads of property and the manner in which they are to be valued, for instance cash in the house and at the banks, household goods, wearing apparel, books, plate, jewel, etc., have to be valued and estimate given, property in Government Securities has to be valued at the price of the day, property...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Nagappa Vyankappa Sali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1163
Mirza, J.1. [His Lordship after dealing with the merits of the appeal proceeded.] It appears that accused Nos. 6 and 12 are undergoing sentences of four years' and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively in connection with their convictions in other trials for similar offences connected with the Sholapur disturbances, Mr. Chitale on their behalf applies to us under the provisions of Section 397, Criminal Procedure Code, to make their sentences in the present case of seven years' rigorous imprisonment each to run concurrently with their sentences in the other cases of four years' and two years' rigorous imprisonment respectively. The Government Pleader has contended that we have no power as a Court of appeal to make an order under Section 397, and that the application should have been made to the Sessions Court at the time of passing the sentences as that was the only competent Court which could make the order asked for. Under Section 397 sentences passed under separate trials or ...
Tag this Judgment!Gadigeppa Bhimappa Meti Vs. Balangowda Bhimangowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1313
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference to a full bench in which the questions raised are whether the decisions of the Bombay High Court in Ganesh Lala v. Bapu I.L.R. (1895) Bom. 198 Dadasaheb Dasrathrao v. Bai Nahani I.L.R. (1917) Bom. 480 19 Bom. L.R. 561 and Jasraj Bastimal v. Sadashiv Mahadev I.L.R. (1921) Bom. 137 23 Bom. L.R. 975 are impliedly overruled by the Privy Council in Sadiq Ali Khan v. Jai Kishori : (1928)30BOMLR1346 and if not whether the Bombay decisions ought to be overruled having regard to the consensus of opinion of the other High Courts in the cases referred to in the question.2. I propose to deal with those two questions as one, because if I entertained a strong opinion that the decisions of the Bombay High Court were right in principle, I should be reluctant to hold that they were impliedly overruled by the Privy Council in a case in which those authorities were not referred to.3. The Bombay cases in question have decided that where an infant represents that h...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »