Mumbai Court September 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.
Savitri Ramayya Hegde Vs. Holebasappa Murgeppa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom257; (1932)34BOMLR198; 137Ind.Cas.600
Baker, J.1. The facts are that one Govindappa owned the land in suit, and made a gift thereof to Venkappa subject to the condition that Rs. 25 was to be paid annually to one Vishweshwar Shastri for performing worship in the month of Shravan in the Mahableshwar temple of Gokarn. Venkappa sold the property to Murgeppa, father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, in 1903. Murgeppa let the property on mulgeni tenure to defendant No. (5 in 1913, and the latter similarly sublet the leasehold to defendants Nos. 7 and 8. After Vishweshwar's death his sons borrowed Rs. 375 from the plaintiff, and assigned their right of recovering the sum of Rs. 25 a year to the plaintiff in lieu of payment of interest. The plaintiff brought this suit for recovery of ten years' dues under Exhibit 60 from the sons of Murgeppa and the mulgeni lessee and sub-lessees. The lower Court found that the transfer in favour of the plaintiff was valid, and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were barred by res judicata from raising any co...
Sakharam Satu Salunkhe Vs. Shamrao Maruti Salunkhe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom234; (1932)34BOMLR191; 137Ind.Cas.572
Nanavati, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover by partition one-ninth share in the plaint property together with mesne profits and costs.2. The original Court, namely, the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Vita, allowed the plaintiff's claim but awarded one-twelfth share instead of one-ninth and also directed that it should be by equitable partition, that is, the property already gifted to the plaintiff and his two brothers should be taken into account.3. On appeal, the District Court of Satara dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim partition. The plaintiff has appealed, as also his two brothers, original defendants Nos. 1 and 2.4. The material facts are that one Satu, a Shudra, had three sons by his married wife and three surviving sons by his mistress Rakhma. In 1903 he executed a gift deed, Exhibit 46 in the case, in favour of Rakhma and the illegitimate sons conveying two lands and a house. Satu died in 1913, and the present suit wa...
Bai Manchha Vs. Tribhovan Lallubhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom434; (1932)34BOMLR385
Patkar, J.1. The property in suit is situated in the village of Amleshwar in the District of Broach. It consists of a whole bhag which belonged to one Morar Kalidas who died leaving no son, but a widow, Bai Suraj, a mother named Laxmi and a daughter named Manchha, defendant No. 1. The widow Bai Suraj remarried in 1905 and the mother Laxmi died in the year 1920. The mother Laxmi and defendant No. 1 lived together and enjoyed the property. Defendant No. 2 is the husband of defendant No. 1. The plaintiff has brought this suit to recover possession of the property in suit from the defendants on the ground of his being the nearest pitrai of Morar Kalidas and entitled to succeed to his estate as a reversioner on the death of the last female holder Bai Laxmi.2. Though under Hindu law defendant No. 1, as the daughter of Morar Kalidas, would be the heir on the re-marriage of the widow Bai Suraj, it is urged on behalf of the plaintiff that according to the special custom of succession to bhag pr...
Emperor Vs. Chanbasappa Baslingappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom61; (1931)33BOMLR1571
Patkar, J.1. In this case the accused Chanbasappa Basalingappa, aged twenty-five years, was tried before the learned Sessions Judge of Belgaum on charges under Sections 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code with having caused grievous hurt to the complainant Virbhadra with a scythe or with having attempted to commit the murder of the said complainant on or about August 28, 1930.2. The offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code was triable with the aid of the assessors before the Sessions Judge of Belgaum whereas the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code was triable with the aid of a jury. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty with regard to the offence under Section 326 and gave their opinion as assessors in favour of the accused on the charge under Section 307.3. The learned Sessions Judge disagreeing with the opinion of the assessors convicted the accused under Section 807 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two year...
Parshottam Bechardas Vs. Keshavlal Dalpatram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom213; (1932)34BOMLR186; 137Ind.Cas.561
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he is the nearest reversionary heir to one Parshottam Madhavji, that the will made by his widow Ujam in respect of the property she acquired under a consent decree between her adopted son Bulakhi and herself was void and inoperative as having been made by a Hindu widow, for possession of the immoveable properties described in the plaint and as acquired by the widow under the consent decree, together with mesne profits, and for accounts and possession of the moveable property of Parshottam. The First Glass Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appeals.2. The essential point in this case is a short one. On reference to the pedigree at p. 2 of the print, it would be found that the plaintiff is the great-great grandson of one Bechar Dhanji, and Parshotamdas was his great-grandson. Parshotamdas died in 1890, and in 1904 his widow Bai Ujam adopted Bulakhidas. Bulakhidas died in August 1916, leaving behind him a ...
Keshavlal Harilal Setalvad Vs. Pratapsing Moholalbhai Sheth
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom168; (1932)34BOMLR167
Nanavati, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 1,14,000 and odd on the strength of a mortgage-bond dated October 17, 1921, executed by defendant No. 1 and of a surety bond dated October 24, 1921, executed by defendants Nos. 2 and 3. A decree was granted against defendant No. 1 as prayed and as regards the sureties the claim was allowed except for a sum of Rs. 5,875 plus interest thereon. The original defendant No. 1 has not appealed, the appellants being the sureties, defendants Nos. 2 and 8,2. The contention of the sureties in substance was that they were not liable because there had been a substantial variation in the original contract between the plaintiff's and defendant No. 1 without their consent, It was also pleaded that the sureties were discharged because time was given to the principal debtor without their consent.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the document evidencing the so-called new contract between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, Exhibit 93, could not b...
Keshavlal Hari Lal Setalvad and ors. Vs. Pratapsingh Moholalbhai Sheth ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-17-1931
Reported in: 137Ind.Cas.564
Nanavati, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 1,14,000 and odd on the strength of a mortgage-bond dated October 17, 1921, executed by defendant No. 1 and of a surety bond dated October 24, 1921, executed by defendants Nos. 2 and 3. A decree was granted against defendant No. 1 as prayed and as regards the sureties the claim was allowed except for a sum of Rs. 5,875 plus interest thereon. The original defendant No. 1 has not appealed, the appellants being the sureties, defendants Nos. 2 and 3.2. The contention of the sureties in substance was that they were not liable because there had been a substantial variation in the original contract between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 without their consent. It was also pleaded that the sureties were discharged because time was given to the principal debtor without their consent.3. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the document evidencing the so-called new contract between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, Ex. 93, could not be rec...
Babu Kirparam Vs. Jawaharsingh Harnamdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom375; (1932)34BOMLR737; 140Ind.Cas.761
Wadia, J.1. This is a petition to set aside an award dated March 24, 1930, and made and published by the arbitrators under the rules and by-laws of the East India Cotton Association, Limited, on May 1, 1930. The award directs the firm of Messrs. Nanakchand Prakaschand and Babu Ramrakhmal, BabuKirparam, the petitioner, Nanakchand and Prakaschand as being partners in the said firm to pay a sum of Rs. 4,822-7-0 with interest thereon at six per cent. per annum from September 26, 1929, till payment and the costs of the arbitration proceedings to the firm of Messrs. Jawaharsing Harnamdas who carry on business in Bombay. I may mention here that in filing an award the arbitrators have to comply with High Court Rule No. 372 which requires that they should file together with the award the evidence on the reference and the minutes of the proceedings and also a copy of the notices given to the parties. This is not done in respect of all the awards made under the by-laws of the East India Cotton As...
Abasbhai Shaikh Abdul HusseIn Vs. Bhimji Malji Choksey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom86; (1931)33BOMLR1563
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice Baker. The plaintiff is the owner of certain immoveable property which he let to the defendant on a monthly tenancy and he sues to recover possession of the property, for three months' arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 200 per month and a further sum for use and occupation after the expiration of the notice to quit, that is to say, in effect for mesne profits. The defendant in his written statement in the first instance stated that he was not bound to quit because of a certain contract under which he was entitled to occupation till June 30, 1923, but that defence was not persisted in. By his amended written statement he takes the point that the plaintiff had already sued him in the Small Cause Court for a sura of Rs. 400 ' pagri' or premium for four months at the rate of Rs. 100 per month, and he says that that suit, having regard to the terms of Order II, Rule 2, of the Civil Procedure Code, is a bar to the p...
Sowkabai Pandharinath Rajapurkar Vs. Sir Tukojirao Holkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1931
Reported in: AIR1932Bom128; (1932)34BOMLR6; 137Ind.Cas.362
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Wadia on certain issues which were framed on the footing that they were preliminary issues, The position of the action is this: The plaint was filed on February 10, 1927, and by it the plaintiff alleges that the ' defendant, whoissued by name and described as ' formerly of Indore ', was up to the year 1926 the Ruling Chief of the Indore State, and then it is alleged that prior to 1926 he committed various wrongful acts against the plaintiff, in particular it is alleged that the plaintiff is the owner of a house in Bombay and that the defendant wrongfully took possession of the house and its contents and also ornaments of considerable value belonging to the plaintiff and remained in possession for eleven years; and then it is alleged that the defendant wrongfully imprisoned the plaintiff, and for those various matters damages are claimed.2. The defendant entered an appearance and took various steps in the acti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »