Mumbai Court April 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.
Emperor Vs. G.V. Vaishampayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom56; (1931)33BOMLR1159
Barlee, J.1. An objection has been raised to the proof by the approver of some of the statements made to him by a man called Swamirao, who is alleged to have been a co-conspirator but is not an accused before this Court. The statements had reference to the alleged attack on the Lamington Road police station and were alleged to have been made after the return of the attacking party to the approver at his residence. The objection is that such statements made after the completion of the attack do not come within Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, inasmuch as they were not made in reference to the common intention of the con-spitators. For the Crown Mr. Velinker argues that any statement made by any one of the conspirators is a relevant fact so long as it is made after the time when the intention of the conspirators was first entertained by any one of them.2. Reading Section 10 it appears to me that narratives coming from the conspirators as to their past acts cannot be said to have a ...
Sangangauda Fakirgauda Vs. Hanmantgauda Sangangauda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-07-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom8; (1931)33BOMLR1225; 136Ind.Cas.500
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Madgavkar in second appeal, and the case raises a short but interesting point of law. The plaintiff claims to succeed to certain watan property as the heir of his natural father Sangangauda. The answer of the defendants is that the plaintiff was adopted into the family of one Mudirangappa and that thereby he lost his right to succeed to his natural father. The reply of the plaintiff is that the alleged adoption was invalid.2. The material facts are that the adoptive father Mudirangappa died in 1875 leaving a widow named Dandava, whom I will hereafter refer to as 'the father's widow.' He also left a son named Timappa who died in 1881. Timappa left a widow named Parvateva, whom I will refer to as ' the son's widow.' It is clear that on the death of the son the estate would vest in the son's widow, and that whether before or after the death of the son the father's widow could not herself exerci...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›