Mumbai Court January 1932 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Ramrao Mangesh Burde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom406; (1932)34BOMLR598
Wadia, J.1. The accused in this case are charged with being parties to a conspiracy in or about October 1930 to do certain illegal acts consisting of offences under the Indian Penal Code. Accused Nos. 1 and 5 are also charged with having forged between them two letters addressed to the manager of the Bank of India, Ltd., Bombay, and five cheques of various amounts drawn on the same bank, in the name of one Maneklal Purshottam Seth, and the remaining accused are charged with abetting accused Nos. 1 and 5 in the commission of the said offence. The accused are also further charged with using the said cheques as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe that they were forged, and also with cheating the Bank of India by dishonestly inducing the bank to deliver the various amounts of the cheques, and with abetment in respect of the same. An objection was raised at the outset that the accused could not be charged with having committed more than three offences within the space of twelve mon...
Tag this Judgment!Parshottam Dahyabhai Dave Vs. Desaibhai Chunthabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR852
Baker, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the plaint property, alleging that it belonged to one Motilal Harjivan, their uncle, who made a will in their favour on July 7, 1910, that Motilal thereafter became a sanyasi on July 13, 1910, and therefore his civil death took place on that date, and they became entitled to the property under the will, that Motilal had no right left in the property, but he sold it to the defendant on September 21,1910, that the deed is void and the defendant had no right under it, and hence they claim possession of the property. The first Court, the Subordinate Judge of Borsad, dismissed the suit, and on appeal the First Class Subordinate Judge with A.P. at Nadiad dismissed the appeal, although his reasons were slightly different from those of the Subordinate Judge. There is no dispute as to the actual facts, which are that Motilal made a will on July 7, 1910, that a few days after that he became a sanyasi, that however he sold the property in d...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Hanmant Deshpande Vs. Adiveppa Ningappa Jakkannavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom577; (1932)34BOMLR1131; 140Ind.Cas.557
Patkar, J.1. These are second appeals arising out of suits by landlords against the tenants. Second AppealsNos. 335 and 436 of 1929 are appeals by the tenants who are held not to be permanent tenants under s.83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. In all the other appeals the tenants are held to be permanent tenants on the strength of the presumption arising under Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.2. Several points were urged in the appeals filed by the landlords. The first point urged in the lower Court was that the presumption under Section 93 would not arise if the tenancy began after the commencement of the grant in favour of the plaintiff's ancestor. That point is covered by the decisions in Ramchandra Narayan Mantri v.Anant I.L.R. (183) Bom. 433 and Shripadbhat v. Eama (1926) 29 Bom. L.R. 274 The point was not seriously pressed before us.3. The second point is whether the presumption under Section 83 would arise when it is shown by the landlord that the tenancy commenced wit...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Sakharam Thakur Vs. Narmadabai Ramkrishna Keluskar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom571; (1932)34BOMLR1209; 140Ind.Cas.200
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Ratnagiri, The plaintiff sued for possession of the suit property, and his case was that he had been taken in adoption by one Sakharam, and that the property in suit was part of Sakharam's ancestral property which had descended to the plaintiff, and that the defendants were wrongly in possession of it.2. The facts are that Sakharam had a brother named Soire who died in 1893. Defendant No. 1 is the daughter of Soire, and defendant No. 2 is her husband; defendant No. 3, who died pending the suit, was the widow of Soire. In 1921 Sakharam adopted the plaintiff, and in 1924 Sakharam died. The defence to the plaintiff's claim to possession of the property was that at the time of the adoption Sakharam and the plaintiff agreed that the plaintiff should not claim more than half of the ancestral property. The learned trial Judge found in answer to the issues which he raised, that the plaintiff was taken i...
Tag this Judgment!Parshottam Dahyabhai Dave and ors. Vs. Desaibhai Chinthabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom459
Baker, J.1. The plaintiffs sued to recover possession of the plaint property, alleging that it belonged to one Motilal Harjivan, their uncle, who made a will in their favour on 7th July 1910; that Motilal thereafter became a sanyasi on 13th July 1910 and therefore his civil death took place on that date, and they became entitled to the property under the will, that Motilal had no right left in the property, but he sold it to the defendant on 21st September 1910, that the deed is void and the defendant had no right under it; and hence they claim possession of the property. The first Court, the Subordinate Judge of Borsad, dismissed the suit, and on appeal the First Class Subordinate Judge with A.P. at Nadiad dismissed the appeal, although his reasons were slightly different from those of the Subordinate Judge. There is no dispute as to the actual facts, which are that Motilal made a will on 7th July 1910, that a few days after that he became a sanyasi, that however he sold the property ...
Tag this Judgment!Kondu Ramji Andhera Vs. Mahadev Gopal Gokhale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-27-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom526; (1932)34BOMLR855
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Assistant Judge of Thana, and the point which arises is whether the respondent in the appeal acquired certain rights under Exhibits 71, 72 and 73 as held by the lower appellate Court.2. The question arises in this way. The land with which we have to deal is khoti nisbat land in the village of Khadkawali in the District of Kolaba. In 1892 that land was mortgaged to one Gokhale by Jankibai who was the widow of the former owner. In 1906 Jankibai died and apparently the equity of redemption was then divisible in sevenths, and in 3 911 three-sevenths were sold away and we are not concerned with them; but four-sevenths were sold to the representative of Gokhale the mortgagee, by the three deeds to which I have referred and upon the construction of which this case turns, But before coming to these deeds it is necessary to mention a few more facts.3. It appears that before the sale to Gokhale of the equity of redemption in fou...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Krishnaji Anant Dange
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-26-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR590
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are two applications in revision made by the accused applying to us to set aside their convictions before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, First Class, Ratnagiri, which were confirmed by the Sessions Judge. The point of law taken is this. The accused were charged that on or about May, 28, 1931, they committed a theft of utensils in the house of the complainant and on June 7, 1931, at night they broke into the house of the aforesaid complainant and committed theft and that they thus committed offences under Sections 380 and 457 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that he could try the offences together under Section 234 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The question is whether that conclusion was right.2. So far as it is necessary to state the facts they can be stated very shortly. It is alleged, as the charge shows, that on May 27, a theft was committed from the cattle shed of the complainant's house. On June 7, a theft w...
Tag this Judgment!Rajanikant Mansukhlal Vs. Kiko Ratilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom506; (1932)34BOMLR1124; 140Ind.Cas.206
Patkar, J.1. This appeal relates to the construction of the will of one Jamnadas Mayaram, who died in the year 1917. On February 1, 1914, he passed two documents, a deed of gift, Exhibit 47, and a will, Exhibit 45. By the deed of gift, Exhibit 47, he gave property worth Rs. 40,000 to the defendants, and by the will Exhibit 45 he made a disposition with regard to thirty-one lands, worthRs. 18,000 and a house worth Rs. 500. Out of the sale proceeds, Ra, 10,000 were directed to be paid to the widow Bai Magan, Rs. 4,000 to the daughter Bai Kiki, and Rs. 4,000 to the daughter Kamla and her son Shantilal. The testator died on March 23, 1917. After his death his widow, Bai Magan, died after making a will in respect of her legacy in favour of Bai Kiki, the original plaintiff, on December 16, 1917.2. The plaintiff brought a suit against the executors for the construction of the will. The defendants contended that the legacy to the widow was a life estate. The case came up to the High Court and ...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomji Ardeshir Cooper Vs. Byramji Bomanji Talati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-22-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom428
Kania, J.1. In this matter the plaintiff obtained an order on January 4, 1932, asking certain banks mentioned in the order to deliver to the plaintiff certified copies of the accounts of the defendant with those banks for the years mentioned in the order. It was alleged that those accounts were relevant to the enquiry. At that time it was contended that under Section 6 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act no notice was necessary to be given to the defendant and that it was not the practice of our High Court to give any notice when an application of this kind was made.2. Thereafter, certain banks prepared and gave to the plaintiff certified copies of the accounts of the defendant with them for certain years and the defendant having come to know of that fact made an application on January 8,1932, to absolve the banks from giving copies of the accounts under the order of January 4, 1932, pending the taking out by the defendant of the present summons to vacate the order of January 4, 1932. A...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. G.G. Munshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom427; (1932)34BOMLR595
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code who invites us to set aside the conviction of the accused passed by the Stipendiary Magistrate, First Class, Ahmedabad, underSection 3(a) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, XI of 1890.2. The accused was convicted under Section 3(a) of having overloaded a cart drawn by a single bullock, and the ground on which the learned Magistrate convicted was that inasmuch as the regulations framed by the Commissioner of Revenue, N.D., under the Public Conveyances Act, VII of 1920, prescribe the weight of twenty-sevenfunds as the maximum weight to be drawn by a single bullock, and as the weight in this case was thirty-fivefunds, it must be assumed that the bullock was overloaded.3. The learned Sessions Judge referred the matter to us because he considered that the weight which the Commissioner of Revenue has fixed for the purposes of the Public Conveyances Act ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »