Mumbai Court February 1932 Judgments
Prag NaraIn Vs. the Collector of Agra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR885
Russell, J.1. This appeal is brought from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad relating to the compensation payable to the appellant under or by virtue of the Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), which will be referred to as the Act.2. The facts require to be stated in some detail for the proper appreciation of the points which are involved.3. On July 9, 1923, the land acquisition officer of Agra (called hereafter the officer) issued a general notice under the Act for the acquisition of a block of land in the city for the purposes of a new police station. The block measured just over one acre, and included certain land and houses belonging to the appellant, which were known by the name Katra Nandram, and which amounted in area to some 4,109 sq. yards.4. There were eighteen claimants to compensation in respect of the entire block of lands, including the appellant and one Dau Dayal. The appellant's claim (as finally amended) was Rs. 3,34,598, made up of Rs. 2,46,780 for t...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Chandan Vs. Chhotalal Jekisondas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom584; (1932)34BOMLR1273; 140Ind.Cas.381
Rangnekar, J.1. The petitioner filed an application in the Court of the Third Joint Subordinate Judge at Ahmedabad for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The learned Judge issued a notice to the opponent and also to the Government Pleader. The opponent appeared and put in a written statment. The learned Judge thereupon examined the plaintiff, one witness Exhibit 22, and the opponent. Full arguments were heard and the learned Judge held that the petitioner was a pauper, but on the merits she had no good subsisting cause of action and rejected the petition. The petitioner applies in revision against that order.2. The learned advocate for the opponent has raised a preliminary objection, In my opinion the preliminary objection must be overruled, and that, in a proper case, a revisional application will lie against an order rejecting the petitioner's application for leave to sue in forma pauperis.3. In the first place, it is necessary to understand the scheme of Order XXXIII of the Civil Proce...
Tag this Judgment!Mallangouda Lingangouda Patil Vs. Dundapagouda Mallangouda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom529; (1932)34BOMLR1009
Rangnekar, J.1. This is an unfortunate litigation, and in my opinion the lower Courts have not appreciated the principles of law applicable to the case, and have not approached it from a proper point of view.2. The plaintiff brought this suit for a declaration that he was the adopted son of one Mallangowda, the deceased husband of defendant No. 3, and that therefore he was the owner of the properties mentioned in the plaint. He also asked for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from taking possession of the suit properties in execution of a decree obtained by him in a previous suit against defendant No. 3 as the widow of her deceased husband. It may be mentioned that defendant No. 1 had filed a suit against Mallangowda, During the pendency of the suit Mallangowda died, and after his death defendant No. 3 adopted the plaintiff. Thereafter defendant No. 3 was brought on the record as the heir and legal representative of Mallangowda, and a decree was passed against her.3. Defendants...
Tag this Judgment!Gangadhar Narayan Inamdar Vs. Prabuddha Vasudeo Mohalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom625; (1932)34BOMLR1223; 140Ind.Cas.884
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmednagar. The suit was a suit by the plaintiffs for redemption of a mortgage made in 1880 in favour of defendant No. 1, or those through whom ho claims, and it is admitted that the right of the plaintiffs to redeem this mortgage depends upon the validity of a deed of gift or surrender made in 1884.2. It appears that in 18S0 the then owner of the property, one Waman Phadnis, had died leaving a widow Lakshmibai, andLakshmibai on November 27,1880, executed the mortgage in suit. In 1884, on September 11, Lakshmibai executed in favour of her daughter Kusabai a deed of gift or surrender, which is Exhibit 74, upon the validity of which we have to adjudicate. The document in question provides that Lakshmibai makes a gift of her ancestral immovable estate in favour of her daughter, and then it is stipulated as follows:-My daughter-in-law Annapurnabai husband's name Autuji Waman Phadnis a...
Tag this Judgment!Champaklal Rupchand Vs. Rayachand Thakorbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom522; (1932)34BOMLR1005
Rangnekar, J.1. Mr. Parulekar for the appellants has raised two interesting points in this appeal. The facts are: The plaintiff brought a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1,282 against the appellants on a promissory note dated October 14, 1926, passed by one Dalichand, their grandfather. It is common ground that Dalichand had executed this promissory note in respect of a debt which on that day was time barred. A decree was passed against the appellants, and as Mr. Parulekar relies upon it, I shall set forth the material portion of the decree. On the day the suit came on for hearing, when the pleader for the plaintiff was present and the pleader for the defendant was absent, it was decreed as follows :The plaintiff shall recover out of the estate of the deceased Dalichand Nanchand a sum of Rs. 1,264-14-0, the costs of this suit) and interest etc.2. This decree was sought to be executed by the judgment creditor, and two contentions were raised on behalf of the appellants. The contentions the...
Tag this Judgment!Swamirao Shrinivas Parvatikar Vs. Bhimabai Pandappa Desai (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom23; (1932)34BOMLR1455
Baker, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken in this appeal that the suit is not competent by reason of the plaintiff's failure to produce a certificate under the Pensions Act. The plaintiff sued to recover from the defendants the assessment of the two inam villages of Wadewadgi and Areshankar for the years 1921 to 1923 alleging that the plaintiff had acquired all the rights of the inamdar over the two villages, and exercised them in the capacity of inamdar, but defendant No. 1, the widow of Padappa, wrongfully recovered the revenue of the two villages for these two years, and hence she is liable to refund it, Both the Courts below have found that a certificate under the Pensions Act, Section 4, was necessary inasmuch as the right to collect the assessment is now claimed by the plaintiff and he wants to recover it from the defendants. The lower appellate Court held that :-It is the plaintiff's case that although the suit is in the form of a suit to recover assessment paid to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Swamirao Shriniwas Parvatikar Vs. Bhimabai Padappa Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom464; (1932)34BOMLR967
Baker, J.1. These appeals form two out of a group of nine appeals between the same parties occupying in different appeals the position of plaintiff and defendant These two appeals relate to two suits for declaration of title to Survey Nos. 86 and 87 of Wadwadgi and Survey Nos. 52 and 53 of Areshankar. The history of the litigation, which is long and complicated, need not be given in this judgment. This is an off shoot of a case which Went before the Privy Council and is the case of Padapa v. Swamirao I.L.R. (1900) Bom. 556 : 2 Bom. L.R. 548 The facts in these two appeals are practically all admitted, and the only question is one of law, and so far as regards Survey No. 86 of Wadwadgi, the plaintiff Swamirao has already obtained a decree against which no second appeal has been presented, and therefore we are not concerned with that number. We are only concerned with Survey No. 87 of Wadwadgi, and Survey Nos. 52 and 53 of Areshankar, and the point in both cases is the same, i. e, whether...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Vaman Ainapure Vs. Nathu Krishna Kale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom480; (1932)34BOMLR1001
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff, a shopkeeper at Wai, sued the defendants, of whom defendant No. 1 was a minorre presented by his certificated guardian defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 3 was added in the appeal in the lower appellate Court on the ground that his deceased father was defendant No. 2's surety in the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act in which defendant No. 2 was appointed guardian of the minor. The claim is based on a promissory note passed by defendant No. 2 as guardian of defendant No. 1, dated August 31, 1921, for Rs. 4,407. The first Court dismissed the suit as against defendant No. 1, but awarded the plaintiff Rs. 4,19915-0 and costs from defendant No. 2. On appeal the District Judge confirmed the finding of the lower Court, holding that defendant No. 1 the minor was not liable on the promissory note. The facts are set out in the judgment of the lower appellate Court. The father of defendant No. 1 died in 1907, leaving a grocery business at Wai, which was inherite...
Tag this Judgment!Babasa Bakale Vs. Hombanna Rayappa Hombannavar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom593; (1932)34BOMLR1268; 140Ind.Cas.624
Rangnekar, J. 1. The question raised in this appeal is one of limitation, and to appreciate it is necessary to know what the suit is about.2. The plaintiff was the commission agent of a partnership firm consisting of the three defendants, and brought this suit to recover Rs. 2,800 as being the balance due to him at the foot of an account existing between him and the defendants, The suit was defended only by defendant No. 1, who challenged certain items in the account, some of which were disallowed by the trial Court, and a decree was passed against him for a sum of Rs. 1,568 odd. The decree was confirmed by the lower appellate Court. In the appellate Court the defendants raised two contentions: (1) that no instructions were given to the plaintiff by the defendants for the purchase of 300 bags of tamarind, and (2) the claim in respect of it was barred by the law of limitation. The appellate Court rejected both the contentions and confirmed the decree of the trial Court. Neither Court, u...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vithal Bhat Vs. Janki Lakshman Shetga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom524; (1932)34BOMLR975
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff, who is khot of the village of Amdoshi in taluka Mangaon of the Kolaba district, sued for a declaration that his tenants had no right to alienate land without his consent and to recover possession of the suit lands from defendants Nos. 1 to 4 with mesne profits and costs; and also for necessary correction in the record of rights.2. Defendant No. 1 for herself and for her minor son defendant No. 2 executed a mortgage of her tenancy in favour of defendant No. 5, Defendant No. 4 was the tenant on the land. The defendants contended that they had redeemed the mortgage and therefore the plaintiff had no cause of action. The first Court, the Second Glass Subordinate Judge of Roha, decreed the plaintiff's claim, but on appeal the District Judge, Thana, reversed the decree and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff makes this second appeal.3. The grounds on which the District Judge proceeded in dismissing the suit are only two. After discussion of the law on the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »