Mumbai Court February 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.
Narayan Balkrishna Vs. Shivshankardas Shivlaldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom493; (1932)34BOMLR959
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the inamdar of the village of Narayanpur, sued to recover possession of the plaint fields from the defendants, together with water cess and costs, alleging that defendant No. 1's father had passed a rent note to him on March 2, 1904, agreeing to pay local fund and assessment, to deliver up possession whenever demanded, and not to alienate the property. After the death of the father, defendant No. 1 sold the property to defendant No. 2 and the deceased father of defendants Nos. 8 and 4. The suit was filed as long ago as 191,9. Originally the first Court gave the plaintiff a decree for possession. On appeal the decree was reversed, and the suit was remanded, and on June 15, 1926, it was dismissed after remand, There was again an appeal, and the decree of the lower Court was reversed, and the plaintiff's suit decreed against all the defendants, Defendant No. 1 has not appealed. Defendants Nos. 2 to 4 have made this second appeal.2. This appeal has been ar...
Keshav Madhavrao Deshmukh Vs. Balaji Vasudeo Athavale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom460; (1932)34BOMLR996
Rangnekar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether a minor is liable on a promissory note passed by his guardian with the sanction of the Court. The material facts are that the grandfather of the minor defendant died possessed of considerable property which by his will he settled on trust for the benefit of his grandson. By the will he appointed his daughter Kondubai and the minor's mother as his trustees. Kondubai passed a promissory note on November 22, 1917, in favour of the plaintiff, and in 1920 she passed another note in renewal of the former for Rs.750. In the meanwhile both these ladies realised the estate and it appears came into possession of a considerable amount of money. They invested the money in their hands in constructing several buildings and in running a flour mill. These ventures did not turn out successful, and the evidence shows that the first promissory note of 1917 was passed for the purpose of borrowing moneys in order to complete a building. Thereafter they...
Jayantilal Hiralal and Co. Vs. Waman Narayen Velinkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom638; (1932)34BOMLR1416
Blackwell, J.1. This is a notice of motion dated December 11, 1931, on behalf of the defendants to the suit for an order that Bhagwandas Maganbhai, the respondent, should be committed to jail for contempt of the Courts order dated October 16, 1931.2. Mr. Engineer, who appears for the defendants, has sought to go into the previous history of the matters which led up to the passing of the order of October 16, 1931. In my opinion, it is quite unnecessary for the proper determination of this notice of motion to go into suchmatters and on the authority of Navivahoo v. Narotamdas Candas I.L.R. (1882) Bom. 5 to which the Advocate General who appears for the respondent was good enough to draw my attention, I also think that it is improper.3. The order of October 16, 1931, was a consent order made on hearing the attorneys for the plaintiffs, the attorneys for the defendants, and the attorneys for the respondent, who had acted as a receiver in the suit. By that consent order the respondent was o...
Bibi Fakrubibi Vs. Saiyad Mahomadmiya Badamiya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR971
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 50 from the defendants, who are the widow and children ofhis deceased brother Yasinmiya, alleging that he and certain other persons were sharers in certain property set apart for religious purposes, and he and the other Bharers enjoyed the property by turns of five years each, his turn being from July 1919 to July 1924, During his term, as he has had no children and as his brother Yasinmiya had a large family, he passed a deed of gift in favour of his brother Yasinmiya, and subsequently Yasinmiya passed a settlement deed to the plaintiff agreeing to pay Rs. 12 a month after July 8, 1924, on which day the plaintiff's turn expired. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits of the property for the last year of his term, alleging that though the gift deed was accompanied by possession, there was an agreement between him and his brother Yasinmiya that he was to receive the profits up to the expiry of his term. The first Court held that the oral ...
Amarchand Rajaram Marwadi Vs. Narayan Vishnu Budhkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom531; (1932)34BOMLR953
Baker, J.1. This is a suit for redemption of a mortgage which was passed in 1834 by the ancestors of the plaintiff's vendors to the ancestors of the defendants. The original mortgage deed is not forthcoming. A copy has been pat in, bat the existence of the mortgage was admitted in the lower appellate Court, as the District Judge has noted. Both the Courts below have awarded redemption, the lower appellate Court having varied the decree of the first Court in respect of the amount payable. The only question that has been argued in appeal is the question of limitation. It is contended that the suit is barred by limitation, the mortgage having been executed so long ago as 1834, the lower Courts having held that limitation was saved by two acknowledgments by the mortgagees or their successore-in-title. The acknowledgments on which the lower Courts have relied are Exhibit 73, which is at p. 13 of the record, and is contained in a kabulayat passed by Nagu, one of the mortgagees to the inamdar...
Bapu Appa Magdum Vs. Mahammad Imam Mulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom456; (1932)34BOMLR944
Baker, J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the owners of Mulanki service lands, sued the defendants for an injunction restraining the latter from obstructing the plaintiffs in their enjoyment of the suit property. The first Court, the Subordinate Judge atChikodi, awarded the plaintiffs' claim, and this was confirmed on appeal by, the District Judge of Belgaum. The defendants make this second appeal.2. This appeal involves two points of law, first, whether the suit is barred under Section 4 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, (X of 1876), and, secondly, whether it is barred byres judicata. The facts are as follows.3. The holder of the Mulanki lands, Imam, the father of the pre-sent plaintiffs, sold them to the defendants on March 28,1892, and the defendants took possession. Admittedly by the sanad this land is inalienable, and also as a general principle Mulanki land is inalienable, In 1911, during the lifetime of Imam, the present plaintiff, his eldest son, applied to the revenue authorit...
ishvar Sangappa Gurlingappa Vs. Ramrao Bhagwantrao Inamdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom462; (1932)34BOMLR948
Baker, J.1. The facts of this appeal are rather unusual, but the point at issue is really a small one. The plaintiffs, who are the inamdars of the village, brought a suit, No. 12 of of 1922, against two persons Krishna Shidda and Mallappa Liugappa to recover from them as tenants assessment of certain land and the local cess, amounting altogether to Rs. 70-1-0. The defendants disputed their liability to pay, but the first Court, the Subordinate Judge at Chikodi, passed a decree against them on May 23, 1923. Subsequent to this decree the present appellant, whose name is Gurlingappa, purchased part of the land at a Court sale, and the other at a private sale in 1924 and 1925. At this time an appeal made by the original defendant Krishna was pending in the District Court at Belgaum, and Gurlingappa applied to be added as a party, as he was a purchaser of the suit property, and he was so added. The decree of the trial Court was confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed with costs by the Distr...
Maneklal Harilal Vs. Maneklal Gordhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom574; (1932)34BOMLR1150
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs brought a suit against the defandants for a declaration that the defendants had no right to admit scavengers into their private khadki land A for cleansing the privy marked in the plan, and also for an injunction restraining them from doing so.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the khadki land below the plaintiffs' upper storey belonged exclusively to them and defendant No. 1 had only a right of way which did not include a right of admitting Municipal Bhangis into the khadki for cleaning the newly constructed privy of defendant No. 1, and that defendant No. 1 was not entitled to do be on the ground of necessity, and therefore held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the declaration and injunction.3. On appeal, the learned First Class Subordinate Judge confirmed the finding as to the ownership of the khadki, but held that defendant No. 1 had a right to allow Bhangis to cleanse his newly constructed privy, that such right was included in ...
Govind Dhondshet Kolwankar Vs. the Chiplun Municipality
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom562; (1932)34BOMLR1216; 140Ind.Cas.213
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Ratnagiri. The plaintiffs are the Chiplun Municipality, and the defendants are certain gentlemen who were members of the managing committee of theChiplun Municipality for the years 1922-23 and 1928-24,2. The facts giving rise to the litigation are stated at considerable length in the judgments of the lower Courts, but I think the facts material to this appeal can be stated very shortly. In the years 1922-23 theChiplun Municipality was minded to acquire some dustbins, and they entered into a contract for the supply of these dustbins with a gentleman named Tankale, The dustbins were supplied and delivery of them was taken by the Municipality, and Tankale was paid the contract price. The claim of the Municipality against the defendants is that they were the managing committee who entered into this contract, that the dustbins were not in accordance with the contract, and that the managing committee ough...
The Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay Vs. the Secretary of S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-11-1932
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR568; 152Ind.Cas.947
Mirza, J.1. This suit has arisen out of an unfortunate dispute between the plaintiffs who are the Municipal Corporation of the city of Bombay and as such represent the interests of the rate-payers of that city, and the defendant who is the Secretary of State for India in Council and as such represents in this case the interests of the tax-payers of the Bombay Presidency. The dispute is in respect of the liability of the Secretary of State for India in Council to contribute a certain amount annually towards defraying the expenses of primary education in the city of Bombay, under an arrangement said to have been arrived at between the Bombay Government and the plaintiff Municipality. [After referring to the efforts made to settle the dispute between the parties, his Lordship proceeded:]2. The case for the plaintiffs is that as the result of certain negotiations in the years 1916 and 1917 a contract was eventually arrived at between the plaintiffs and the Government of Bombay by which the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »