Mumbai Court August 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.
Chintamanrao Appasaheb Patvardhan Vs. Ramchandra Govind
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom130; (1932)34BOMLR92; 137Ind.Cas.881
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a perpetual injunction against the defendant not to pass dirty water on the plaintiff's site, and for an order to close the 'mori' more particularly referred to in the plaint. Both the lower Courts have decided against the plaintiff. Their decisions amount to a finding that the defendant has proved that he has the right to pass the water, as he has been doing.2. It is not in dispute that such a right falls within the definition of an easement in Section 4 of the Indian Easements Act.3. The lower Courts have also found that the defendant cannot bring himself within the terms of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act (V of 1882) which, so far as relevant, is to the effect that where any easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, the right to such easement shall be absolute; provided that the said period of twenty years sh...
Fakirappa Babappa Yaligar Vs. Rudrappa Rachappa Deshnur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom255; (1932)34BOMLR354; 137Ind.Cas.367
Tyabji, J.1. In this case I have to decide whether the purchaser of a property from the managing member of a coparcenery and his minor nephew, (the minor purporting to be represented by his mother and by the said managing coparcener), obtained a valid title to the property in the events that have happened.2. It was argued that Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act was applicable in favour of the purchaser, who had acquired the property from an ostensible owner; that the transfer was for consideration ; that the transferee had taken reasonable care to as certain that the transferor had power to make the transfer and had acted in good faith. This point was not taken in the first instance. It is not raised in the pleadings and issues. It cannot be allowed to be raised at this stage : DeSilva v. DeSilva (1903) 5 Bom. L.R. 784 and Mulji Jetha & Co. v.Macleod (1903) 5 Bom. L.R. 991.3. Next, it was argued that the appellant had acquired the property by adverse possession. The appellant i...
Gafuralli Sayad Anwar Vs. MohiddIn Shamsuddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom65; (1931)33BOMLR1575
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs praying for a declaration that they and other Mahomedans of other Mohollas at Chopda have a right along with the defendants and other residents of their Moholla, i.e., Darga Moholla, to look after the Darga of Hazrat Mustafa Saheb in the city of Chopda, to manage the property and income of that Darga and to keep accounts, to assemble Urus and to perform all other functions, and that a permanent injunction be issued to the defendants that they for themselves and on behalf of other Mahomedans of Darga Moholla should cause no obstruction. 2. The point as to whether the suit is barred under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code was not taken by the defendants in their written statement and no issue was raised on the point. The learned Subordinate Judge examined the witnesses on behalf of both the parties and instead of recording findings on the material issues Nos. 3, 4, and 5 dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs do no...
Emperor Vs. Jagannath Raghunathdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1518; 136Ind.Cas.493
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused from a con-vicbion before the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge is that the accused on or about September 14, 1929, at Bombay did bring various sums of money aggregating to Rs 51,228-5-0 from several constituents of the firm of Rai Saheb Ramdayal Ghasiram for the use of the said firm and did dishonestly misappropriate the said sum to his own use and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 406. He was sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default six months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The history of the matter so far as is material is this: There was an old firm in which one Gopilal, whose Munim Ganpatlal Jankidas is the complainant in this case (though I will hereafter refer to Gopilal as the complainant), was a partner, and the accused and a man named Motiram were also partners. That firm was wound up in July 1928, a settlement w...
Salubai Ganesh Hatwalne Vs. Keshavrao Vasudeo Kortikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom156; (1932)34BOMLR83; 137Ind.Cas.732
Patkar, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge selecting a bridegroom for a minor of whose person a guardian was appointed, and ordering the marriage to take place within four months from the date of the order.2. The appeal is filed by the guardian of the person of the minor and a stay order has been obtained. It appears that one Ganesh Sakharam Supekar had two wives, one Mathurabai and the other Salubai, the appellant before us. The minors are the daughters of Ganesh from Mathurabai who predeceased her husband. The appellant is the step-mother of the two minors. After the death of Mathurabai, Ganesh adopted one Pandurang who brought a suit for partition and succeeded in getting a share decreed to him. After the partition decree was obtained by the adopted son, Ganesh died leaving a will dated August 19,1926, by which he bequeathed all his property to his minor daughters Sonubai and Vithabai. Damodar Harbaji, the brother of Salubai, the stepmother of the minors, ...
Emperor Vs. Hari Moreshvar Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1931
Reported in: (1931)33BOMLR1515
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the petitioner is about to be charged under Section 124 A of the Indian Penal Code, the nature of the offence being that he made a speech in which it is alleged that there were seditious passages, and he now applies that the First Glass Magistrate, Alibag, in whose Court the case is pending, may be ordered to commit the case to the Court of Session at Thana for trial.2. Now, under Schedule II to the Criminal Procedure Code it is provided that the method of trial for offences under Section 124 A may be either the Court of Session, Chief Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered by the Local Government in that behalf. In the present case the matter has been inquired into by a Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered by the Local Government at Alibag, and he has expressed the view that if he thinks a prima facie case is made out against the accused he will frame a charge and try the case...
Hari Moreshvar Joshi Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom63; 136Ind.Cas.187
Beaumont, C. J.1. In this case the petitioner is about to be charged under Section 124. A of the Indian Penal Code, the nature of the offence being that he made a speech in which it is alleged that there were seditious passages, and he now applies that the First Glass Magistrate, Alibag, in whose Court the case is pending, may be ordered to commit the case to the Court of Session at Thana for trial.2. Now, under Sch. II to the Criminal Procedure Code it is provided that the method of trial for offences under Section 124-A may be either the Court of Session, Chief Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate or Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered by the Local Government in that behalf. In the present case the matter has been inquired into by a Magistrate of the First Class specially empowered by the Local Government at Alibag, and he has expressed the view that if he thinks a prima facie case is made out against the accused he will frame a charge and try the case himself. No...
Premji Hurji and Co. Vs. Premji Pannalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom314; (1932)34BOMLR717
Rangnekar, J.1. This is a motion for the appointment of a receiver in a commercial cause. Mr. Setalvad has raised a preliminary objection that the application cannot be entertained on a notice of motion as in the case of an ordinary long cause. The point covered by the objection has not been decided in any reported decision of this Court. My attention, however, has been drawn to three suits on the record of this Court. The first is a suit No. 1133 of 1929, in which Mr. Justice Sir Norman Kemp entertained an application for the appoint meat of a receiver under the summons for directions taken out in the suit. As to this it is pointed out that there was a prayer for the appointment of a receiver in the original summons for directions. The next suit is Suit No. 2187 of 1930, in whichMr. Justice Blackwell held that an application for the appointment of a receiver must be made in the ordinary way in the Court on a notice of motion and not under a summons for directions. But the same learned...
Yusuf Ismailbhai Abdullabhai Lalji Vs. Abdullabhai Lalji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom615; (1932)34BOMLR880
Wadia, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by defendant No. 10 for an order inter alia that the sale by the Commissioner of this Court of certain salt works at Aden referred to in the Order of October 9, 1930, made by Mirza J. be stayed until the further orders of the Court or in the alternative until some date in April or May 1932. The Order of October 9, 1930, was made by consent of all parties except the plaintiff and defendant No. 7, who were absent, and was made in the same terms in invitum as against them. Under it the Commissioner was ordered to fix the date of sale of the salt works on November 15, 1931, and he was further ordered not to proceed with the settlement of the necessary preliminaries before the sale until July 15, 1931. Liberty was reserved under the order to the parties to apply. All the parties who appeared before me are agreeable that an order should be made in terms of the notice of motion except defendant No. 9 who opposes the notice, and his counsel has ...
B. Mohanlal and Co. Vs. A. Yolibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom271; (1932)34BOMLR714
Rangnekar, J.1. This suit was dismissed by me on June 30, 1931, under the provisions or Order XI, Rule 21, of the Civil Procedure Code, on account of the plaintiffs' default in giving inspection of the documents disclosed in their list of documents to the defendant in accordance with the order made to that effect by theCourt. The plaintiffs now apply to set aside the order of dismissal. A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Setalvad on behalf of the defendant, and he says that the order of dismissal cannot be set aside by a motion, as there is no provision in the Code or in the Rules of the High Court, 1930, to that effect and that the only remedy open to the plaintiffs is either by an application for review of judgment or by an appeal. Now, it is undoubtedly true that there is no specific provision made either in the Civil Procedure Code or in the Rules under which an order of dismissal made under Order XI, Rule 21, can be set aside. It is equally true that an appeal lies against s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›