Mumbai Court August 1931 Judgments
Senaji Kapurchand Vs. Pannaji Devichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom81; (1931)33BOMLR1596
Baker, J.1. This is an application under Section 115 for revision of an order passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dhar-war, or rather I should say a finding on an issue, that the suit No. 46 of 1919 is not barred by res judicata by reason of the Privy Council decision in a similar suit and therefore the suit should be heard on the merits.2. The facts, so far as they are necessary for the determination of this application are that there were certain dealings between three firms at Bellary in the Madras Presidency and one firm in the Dharwar District, and in connection with these transactions certain obligations were incurred which formed the subject of two suits, one in Bellary brought by the present defendants against the present plaintiff', and one in Dharwar by the plaintiff against the present defendants, the parties being same in the two suits. The Bellary suit went in appeal to the Madras High Court, and pending hearing of the appeal, the hearing of the Dharwar suit was...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Sakerlal Vs. the Municipality of Thana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom259; (1932)34BOMLR143
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff sued the Municipality of Thana by its President, the Municipal Secretary, and the Sanitary Inspector for damages for malicious prosecution for unauthorisedly rebuilding his house. The First Class Subordinate Judge of Thana dismissed the suit. The plaintiff a2. The record of this case is voluminous, and the arguments have 'taken a considerable time. But there is no dispute as to the actual facts, and once the issues of law have been disposed of, the case seems to me to depend on a few salient facts, and many of the details may be omitted. The facts put briefly are, the plaintiff purchased a house in Thana. He applied in March 1922 for the house being entered in his name and for permission to make certain repairs and alterations. This was refused, The Municipality later on in July said that permission was refused because the house was in the regular line. The Municipality also thought of acquiring the house or portions of it for the purpose of widening the stree...
Tag this Judgment!Mallappa Yellappa Bennur Vs. Nagappa Hanmanta Saler
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1931
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR372
Tyabji, J.1. I have listened with pleasure to the clear and forcible argument of Mr. Desai to induce me to come to the conclusion that in this appeal there is a question of law on which the lower appellate Court has given a wrong decision.2. The question is, whether the document, Exhibit 97, dated March 17, 1917, is a sale out and out, or whether it cornea within the terms of Section 58, Clause (c), of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and is to be treated as a mortgage by conditional sale.3. The question arises in a suit for possession, brought on November 25, 1926, nine years and eight months after the document in question was executed. The defendant, the executant of the deed, resists the suit for possession, alleging that there was only a mortgage intended.4. The terms of the deed are to the effect, that the transferee should take possession from the date of the deed : the consideration for the deed was a sum of Rs. 3000, which was the sum at which the transferor's indebtedness w...
Tag this Judgment!Narayandas Sundarlal Rathi Vs. Narayandas Harbhagat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom363; (1932)34BOMLR703
Wadia, J.1. This suit has been mentioned to me in chambers for obtaining directions regarding the handing over of the papers and proceedings in the suit by one attorney to another, as the question of solicitor's lien for costs is involved therein. The suit was filed on a commission agency account as a short cause on June 17, 1930. Messrs. Tyabji, Dayabhai & Co. are the attorneys on the record for the plaintiff who is the Karta or manager of a joint Hindu family firm and resides at Amraoti in the Central Provinces and carries on business in Bombay through his munim and constituted attorney. It appears from the affidavit of Mr. Chhaganlal Dayabhai, a partner in the firm of Messrs. Tyabji, Dayabhai & Co., that his firm have acted as attorneys for the plaintiff in various suits and proceedings in this Court, one of the suits being a suit which was filed as far back as 1919. According to the affidavit a large sum of money is due to the firm in respect of the several suits and proceedings ev...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gafur Gulamsaheb Don Vs. Mahomed Mukaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom77; (1931)33BOMLR1593
Tyabji, J.1. The question on the merits in this application is very short, but several preliminary questions arise, with which I must first deal.2. There was a money decree. In the execution of the decree the judgment-debtor was arrested. Then there was a bond for security, in the form No. II, given in Appendix F, to the Civil Procedure Code. Subsequently the judgment-creditor wished to enforce the decree against the surety. Abortive proceedings took place, after which the judgment-creditor applied under Section 55 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code, which is to the effect that on the happening of certain events the Court may either direct the security to be realised, or commit the judgment-debtor to civil prison in execution of the decree.3. It was argued before me that an order made under Sub-section (4) of Section 55 was not appealable.4. In reply, my attention was drawn to Section 145, under which (so far as at present relevant), where any person has become liable as surety for the pa...
Tag this Judgment!Chimanram Motilal Vs. Divanchand Govindram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom151; (1932)34BOMLR26
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from (sic) Mr. Justice Blackwell. The case took several days (sic) of first instance and it has occupied more than a day (sic) Court, but the dispute is really confined within a small compass (sic) is agreed that on May 25, 1930, a contract was made (sic) which the plaintiffs agreed to sell to the defendants sixty bars (sic) and that that contract was negotiated on behalf of the (sic) by a broker named Dhanasing. There was a note of (sic) contract made in the plaintiffs' Soda book in these terms :- (sic) old silver bars sixty to Diwanchand Govimdram deliverable on (sic) 30, by the hand of Dhanasing', and Dhanasing signed that (sic) in the plaintiffs' book. The defendants' case is that that note does not contain a complete record of the contract. They say that the quality of the silver was to be the highest quality which is known as 999, that the purchase-price was to include the customs duty, and that the plaintiffs were to get Kabul drawbac...
Tag this Judgment!Parashram Madhavrao Bhadanekar Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom319; (1932)34BOMLR129
Baker, J.1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Ratnagiri dismissing the plaintiff's claim for a declaration that he has a Sardeshimuki right to recover two per cent. on the revenue of certain villages in Devgad and Malvan talukas in the Ratnagiri District. The plaintiff is the Chief of Bavda in Kolhapur State, and by a sanad granted by the Maharajah of Satara in the year 1704 A. D, he is given the right to collect Government dues in respect of certain villages in the Devgad and Malvan talukas and to take two per cent. of the collections. This right was recognised and continued by the British Government, but in 1889 the Collector of Ratnagiri recommended that the basis of payment should be permanently fixed at the average five years' receipts. This was after the service was commuted, Government collecting the revenue directly. The Collector's recommendation was accepted by the Commissioner, who passed an order accordingly, which was ultimately approved by Gove...
Tag this Judgment!Maharudrappa Danappa Sonar Vs. Lakshman Hanmantappa Jamkhandi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom449; (1932)34BOMLR212; 137Ind.Cas.583
Tyabji, J.1. The only question in this case is, whether the lower Courts have misconstrued the sale-deed, Exhibit 37, in favour of the defendants. The question really depends upon whether the land that was sold to the defendants was particularized-described and identified-with reference to-(1) its measurements : as three acres and four gunthas; and by reference to the land being half of Pot 3, in survey No. 94, or,(2) whether it was sold with reference to the actual piece of land : of which possession was given to the vendee at the time of the sale ?2. A similar question was considered in Suleman Vadu v. Trikamji Velji (1875) 12 B.H.C.R. 10 and Mr. Justice West, delivering the judgment of the Court, put the question in the following form (p. 1.2):-The question seems to be whether the area of the field, as specified, was an essential para of the consideration for the payment made by the plaintiff, or whether, although the area is set down as matter of description, he bought and took the...
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Subrao Bijur Vs. Babani Soiru Bhandari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom244; (1932)34BOMLR366
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal raises a question allied to that with which I have just dealt in Babani v. Dulba (1931) 34 Bom. L.R. 357 The present case, however, is clearer, because the person to whom the property was ' restored,'-one Anant Habbu-stated to the authorities that he was not entitled to more than one-half the property. The appellant is a transferee from the persons who wereentitled to a quarter of the other half. The respondents refused to recognise the right of the appellant to get that quarter. They succeeded in the lower Courts. The Court of the first instance considered that the appellant was not entitled to any relief, because the transfer to him was (under the Transfer of Property Act. Section 6) a transfer of a chance of an heir-apparent succeeding to an estate.2. The learned District Judge considered the applicability of Sections 27 and 18 of the Specific Relief Act, and held that the facts did not come within those provisions, because he considered that the appellant's...
Tag this Judgment!Babani Soiroo Patel Vs. Dulba Govind Bhandari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom240; (1932)34BOMLR357; 137Ind.Cas.355
Tyabji, J.1. The present appeal arises out of a dispute in respect of certain lands, which had been acquired by Government in 1865. The question that has to be considered is, whether the lands have come into the possession of the first respondent in such circumstances, that he must be held to take them as a constructive trustee thereof, on behalf of himself and other persons, or whether he was entitled to take them entirely for himself.2. The principle that is invoked by the appellant, who contends that the first respondent is a constructive trustee, is recognised in Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act.3. Government, as I have already stated, acquired the lands in 1865; and forty-seven years later, on December 28,1912, by a resolution of Government, it was resolved that the lands should be restored to the persons from whom they had been acquired. The resolution is headed: ' Subject-Restoration of lands at Baitkhol,' and the operative portion is in paragraph 2 of the resolution, which s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »