Mumbai Court January 1932 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.
Antu Navaji Salunke Vs. Yeshvant Bala Gaikwad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-21-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom430; (1932)34BOMLR811; 140Ind.Cas.258
Baker, J.1. The facts of this appeal are simple. They raise a point of Hindu la v. The plaintiff, who was the adopted son of one Bala, sued to Bet aside an alienation made by Bala's widow Jija in favour of her son-in-law defendant No. 1. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that Bala died leaving a widow Jija and two daughters Chandra and Ganga, of whom Chandra was married to defendant No. 1. She died in 1915. In 1920 Jija and Ganga, the next reveraioner, both passed a deed of gift in favour of defendant No. 1. Exhibit 17, dated June 4, 1920. In 1926 Jija quarrelled with defendant No. 1, and took the present plaintiff in adoption on June 1, 1926. The plaintiff sued to set aside the alienation to defendant No. 1. The first Court dismissed the suit on the authority of Hem Chunder Sanyal v. Sar-namoyi Debi I.L.R. (1894) Cal. 354 and Chinnaewami Pillai v. Appaawami Pillai I.L.R. (1918) Mad. 25. On appeal, the decree of the lower Court was Reversed by the Assistant Judge o...
Shankar Narayan More Vs. Tukaram Ranu Bagal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom438; (1932)34BOMLR808; 140Ind.Cas.256
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff, a minor, sued to recover possession of the plaint property after cancelling the sale-deed of July 81, 1926, or, in the alternative, for possession of his half share of the property on declaring the suit transaction not binding on him, alleging that defendant No. 2, who is his father, passed the sale-deed in suit to defendant No. 1 for Rs. 2,000, without any legal necessity, and being forced to do so by misrepresentation. The other defendants are tenants of defendant No. 1. The first Court, the JointSubordinate Judge of Barsi, held that though it was not shown that the property was sold for an illegal or immoral purpose, there was not shown to be any legal necessity for the sale, and he held that the sale-deed was not binding on the share of the plaintiff, who was entitled to possession of his share of the suit land by partition, together with mesne profits and costs. On appeal, the District Judge of Sholapur set aside the decree and dismissed the plaintiff's ...
Jamnadas Parbhudas Vs. Bai Soonabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom622; (1932)34BOMLR1405
Kania, J.1. This summons is taken out to determine the rights of various persons, who are decree-holders against the defendants, in property in the hands of this Court. Exhibit A to the affidavit of Ranchhordas Lallubhai dated June 29, 1931, gives particulars as to the dates and amounts of the decrees and the dates on which the parties made applications to this Court for the execution of their decrees.2. Various contentions have been raised at the hearing of the summons as to the rights of the various creditors to get the money. The first question to be determined is the construction of Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code, and for the purpose of arriving at the decision the following dates are material, The properties originally belonged to one Vicaji, and the plaintiff-mortgagee in this suit obtained a preliminary mortgage decree for sale on October 31, 1928, and a decree absolute on June 17, 1929. Defendant No. 7 was the secondmortgagee. There are two lots of properties with which...
In Re: Ahmed Alimahomed Khoja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom613; (1932)34BOMLR1398
Kania, J.1. This application is principally for the examination of the alleged mortgagees under Section 36 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act and for restraining them from selling the shop, stock-in-trade and furniture pending their examination. On the affidavits filed I find no reason why I should order the examination of Hassanalli and Ahmed under Section 35, They have clearly indicated the documents on which they rely for the purpose of their claim and I do not think any further materials can be property elicited from them by their examination. That application is, therefore, refused.2. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the mortgagees have no right, either to take possession of the property or to sell the same, without the intervention of the Court. The document under which the mortgagees make their claim is annexed as Ex, A to the affidavit of Hassanalli and Ahmed dated January 4, 1932. That document creates a floating charge in favour of the mortgagees in respect...
Satgur Parsad Vs. Har NaraIn Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR771
George Lowndes, J.1. These are consolidated cross-appeals against a decree of the Chief Court of Oudh dated May 2, 1928. The appellant in the one case, Satgur Prasad, was the principal defendant in a suit instituted on the original side of the Chief Court, which was decided against him both by the trial Judge and the Court of Appeal. In the other the plaintiff, Mahant Har Narain Das, is the appellant, raising subsidiary questions on which the Court of Appeal had decided against him.2. The main issue in the suit was as to the validity of a deed, dated November 25,1924, by which the plaintiff purported to make over a valuable estate and other property to the defendant-appellant subject to certain conditions. The object of the suit was to set aside this deed on the ground that it was procured by undue influence and fraud. There are concurrent findings of both the Courts in India that this has been established, and they are undoubtedly findings of pure fact. It is not disputed that if they...
Krisnabai Vs. Framroz Edulji Dinshaw
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom543; (1932)34BOMLR834; 140Ind.Cas.254
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Privy Council and it raises a question not free from difficulty under Section 110 of the Civil Procedure Code. That section provides:-In each of the eases mentioned in Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 109, the amount or value of the subject-matter of the suit in the Court of first instance must be ten thousand rupees or upwards, and the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute on appeal to His Majesty in Council must be the same sum or upwards,or the decree or final order must involve, directly or indirectly, some claim or question to or respecting property of like amount or value.2. Those words are not very easy to construe, and the decisions of this Court upon them, which appear to me to be somewhat conflicting, do not render the question any easier. It is obvious that difficult questions may arise under the second paragraph of the section in dealing with questions of easement where t...
Bhagvan Manaji Marwadi Vs. Hiraji Premaji Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom516; (1932)34BOMLR1112; 140Ind.Cas.519
Patkar, J.1. One Gamnaji Jethaji, styling himself as the proprietor of the shop of Hiraji Premaji, brought Suit No. 151 of 1921 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Bijapur against the firm of Mulchand Raychand by its partners (1) Dullabh and (2) Babasing. Dullabh referred the matter to arbitration without the leave of the Court and an award was made and a decree passed for Rs. 3,261 against the firm of Mulchand Raychand. Suit No. 297 of 1927 was brought by Dullabh, Babasing, and Rayohand claiming some amount from Gamnaji in respect of the same matter, but the suit was dismissed. The decree-holder recovered Rs. 2,585 from the partnership property by several darkhasts in1922, 1923, 1924 and 1927, and darkhast No. 43 of l928 was brought by Chhaganlal, son of Gamnaji, who died in the meanwhile, for recovery of Rs. 2,478, the balance of the decretal amount from the private property of the other partners who were not served in the suit, namely, Mulchand, Bhagvan and Rayohand...
Vithagouda Lingappa Sardesai Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom442; (1932)34BOMLR818; 140Ind.Cas.242
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the District Judge of Belgaum. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that he is the validly adopted son of Lingappa Jayappa Sardesai of Sirsangi. The facts giving rise to the claim are these: Lingappa died on August 23, 1909, and defendant No. 2 is his widow. By his will he gave his property in a certain manner if he should have issue born of his body. If he should have no issue born of his body (which event happened), then he gave all his moveable and immoveable property for chari-ty, and then there were certain directions as to adoption to which I will refer presently. On December 12,1906, the widow purported to adopt the plaintiff. In the year 1909 probate of the will was granted to the Collector of Belgaum as the executor named in the will. In 1909 by suit No. 50 of 1909 the widow applied to revoke the probate, her contention being that the testator's property was inalienable. She further alleged that t...
In Re: Muni Kantivijayaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR587
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision in which the applicant challenges the order made by the City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, requiring the applicant to pay Rs. 25 a month for the maintenance of his wife. The applicant belongs to the Jain community and it is not disputed that some years ago he became a Sadhu, Under Section 488 it is provided that if any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain his wife an order may be made. The first point raised by Mr. Velinker, on behalf of the applicant, is that the respondent is no longer his wife. The second point is that he has no sufficient means. Either point if proved would take the case out of the section.2. Upon the first point as to whether the respondent is still the wife of the applicant, the argument is that the applicant by becoming aSadhu became civilly dead. It is said that for all purposes of inheritance he is presumed to be dead, therefore his wif...
Kadiyala Venkata Sabamma Vs. Katreddi Ramayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR764
George Lowndes, J.1. The appellants are beneficiaries under the will of one Madduru Venkata Subanna, who died on January 5,1917. He was a Hindu residing at Pedakapavaram, in the Kistna District ofMadras. The respondent, MudduriGangamma, is his widow, and was appointed (as is now admitted), executrix according to the tenor of the will, but has not obtained probate. The other respondents are a minor son, adopted by the widow, and various persons interested in the properties of the testator under alienations made by the widow purporting to act as his executrix.2. The suit out of which the appeal arises was instituted by the appellants to enforce their right to particular parcels of laud which they alleged had been allotted to their shares under a family arrangement made shortly after the testator's death, or in the alternative for partition of the estate without regard to the alienations which, it was contended, the executrix had, in the absence of probate, no power to make, and which wer...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »