Mumbai Court November 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.
Shidramappa Nilappa Ujalambe Vs. Neelavabai Chanbasappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom272; (1933)35BOMLR397
Baker, J.1. A preliminary question arises in this appeal as to who is the heir of respondent No. 1, Bhagirthibai, the original plaintiff. The contest is between Neelava, respondent No. 4, who is the widow of Chanbasappa, the separated brother of Bhagirthibai's husband Shivlingapa, and Shivlingappa's three sisters Akavva, Sangava, and Kushava. The point is of importance as Neelava supports the appellant, and therefore if she is found to be the heir of Bhagirthibai there is not likely to be much oppostion to the appeal. It is settled law in the Bombay Presidency that the sister inherits immediately after the father's mother and before the father's father under the Mitakshara. But it is contended that her place in the order of succcession is affected by Act II of 1929, Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, Section 2, which provides that a son's daughter, daughter's daughter, sister, and sister's son shall, in the order so specified, be entitled to rank in the order of succession next ...
Emperor Vs. Dagadu Kondaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom144; (1933)35BOMLR183
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference by the Additional Sessions Judge of Poona under Section 307 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Accused No. 1 was convicted by the jury by a majority of four to one of the offence of rape, and accused No. 2 was convicted by a similar majority of abetment of rape. References under Section 807 are more common, at any rate in this Presidency, in cases of acquittal by the jury than of conviction. Indeed I do not myself remember to have heard any previous reference in the case of a conviction. Section 307 makes no distinction between cases of acquittal and conviction, and the learned Government Pleader argues that we must deal with each ease on the same footing. Just as in cases of acquittal we have only to see that there was evidence on which the jury could properly acquit, so in the case of conviction we have only to see that there was evidence on which the jury could properly convict, in each case the verdict must have been perverse before we can interfer...
Shamji Rakhama Patil Vs. Mahadev Sadashiv Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom191; (1933)35BOMLR282; 147Ind.Cas.1233
Patkar, J.1. It is necessary to state the facts which led to the present litigation.2. The Darogaon Co-operative Credit Society, of which the plaintiff, the defendants, and others were members and Shravan Shamji was chairman, executed an agreement with the Malegaon Municipality to purchase and remove the manure for five years at the rate of Rs. 2,500 for 1916-1917 and Rs. 100 in addition for each subsequent year. The plaintiff and defendant No. 1 were sureties of the society for the due performance of the agreement. The contract was carried out for some years and was subsequently broken on October 1, 1918. The Malegaon Municipality thereupon brought Suit No. 304 of 1921 against Shravan Shamji, the plaintiff, defendant No. 1., and the liquidator representing the co-operative society. On November 21, 1922, a decree was passed awarding the plaintiff's claim against the society as regards its property represented by the liquidator and against defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff. The claim wa...
Umakant Balkrishna Vs. Martand Keshav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom245; (1933)35BOMLR388; 145Ind.Cas.164
Rangnekar, J.1. These two appeals and the revision application arise out of suits filed by one Balkrishna against the defendants to recover the amounts due to him on promissory notes passed in favour of 'the shop of Balkrishna Saraf'. Shortly after the institution of the suit Balkrishna died, and on an application by his two sons, Umakant and Narhari, the plaint was amended and they were brought on record as heirs and legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff'. The principle suit in which evidence was recorded was suit No. 61 of 1925. The defendants put in a written statement in December, 1925, and the main defence was that the claim of the plaintiffs under the promissory note was satisfied by payment made to Narhari, the younger son, in respect of which the latter had passed a receipt. It may be stated that the total principal sum due to the 'shop of Balkrishna Waman Saraf' was about Rs. 5,380 exclusive of costs and interest. Besides that there was an outstanding decree for Rs. ...
Raghunathdas Harjivandas Vs. the District Superintendent of Police
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom187; (1933)35BOMLR276
Baker, J.1. A preliminary point is taken by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent, the Secretary of State, in this appeal that no appeal lies.2. The appeal relates to the apportionment of compensation for certain land acquired in Nasik, and it is contended that under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act no appeal will lie against an order passed in respect of the apportionment of compensation in a reference under Section 30 of the Act. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has based his argument first on the fact that under Section 39 of the old Act there was a distinct section referring to the right of appeal against an order apportioning compensation, which does not exist in the present Act, and secondly on the ruling of the Privy Council reported in Ramchandra Rao v. Ramchandra Rao : (1922)24BOMLR963 and it is contended that the Privy Council have held in that case that the term 'award' can only include an order regarding the amount of compensation to be p...
Bhimabai Kom Jivangouda Patil Vs. Gurunathgouda Khandappagouda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-04-1932
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR202
Dinshah Mulla, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, dated February 28, 1928, which affirmed the decree of the Court of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar, dated April 8, 1925,2. The main question involved in the appeal is whether, according to the aw prevalent in the Mahratta country of the Bombay Presidency, a Hindu widow, whose husband was undivided at the time of his death, and who has not the express permission of her husband, may adopt a son to him without the consent of the surviving co-parceners. The parties are governed by the Mitakshara law, and on questions on which the Mitakshara is silent, by the law as expounded in the Vyavahara Mayukha of Nilakantha.3. The following pedigree shows the relationship between the rival claimants :- Dyamangouda | -------------------------------------------------- | | | Nilkanthgouda Khandapagouda Jivangouda = Bhimabai (d. December, 1915) (d. 1912) (d.1913) (Deft.applt. No. 1) | | |...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›