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.
Venkaraddi Mardeppa Lingdal Vs. Hanmantgowda Ramangowda Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom559; (1932)34BOMLR1144
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff for a declaration that the deed of gift passed by his wife Tulsava in favour of the defendant, her brother, was invalid as it was passed by her without the consent of the plaintiff, her husband.2. The property in suit was bequeathed in 1907 by the maternal grandfather to the plaintiff's wife Tulsava, who passed a deed of gift in 1926 in respect thereof in favour of her brother, the defendant. According to the finding of the lower Court, which we think is correct, the plaintiff and his wife did not live together ever since they were married. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the property which came to the plaintiff's wife was saudayika stridhan, and therefore, she was competent to make a gift in favour of her brother without the consent of her husband. In the alternative he held that even if it were not saudayikastridhan, she was competent to alienate it as she had beenabandoned by her husband and was not under coverture, and r...
The Light of Asia Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bai Chanchal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom392; (1932)34BOMLR815; 140Ind.Cas.262
Baker, J.1. The only point in this case is one of jurisdiction. The plaintiff's husband who resided in Ahmedabad was insured with the defendant company, who carry on business in Calcutta. Admittedly the premia were payable in Calcutta, and the policy contains a clause that the amount of the insurance is payable in Calcutta, The plaintiff's husband died in Ahmedabad, and the company having refused payment for reasons with which we are not concerned at present, the widow sued the company in the Court at Ahmedabad. They pleaded that the Court had no jurisdiction, but this point was decided against them in the first Court and in appeal. They make this second appeal.2. There is no authority of this Court on the point, but it has been decided by the Calcutta and Madras High Courts and by the Punjab Chief Court that a suit against an insurance company can be brought where the insured died, the death being a part of the cause of action. There is a decision to the contrary of the Rangoon High C...
Shankar Narayan Pande Vs. Rikhavdas Chandanmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom483; (1932)34BOMLR941
Rangnekar, J.1. It has been strenuously argued by Mr. Joshi in this case that his clients are not liable to satisfy the decree which was passed against them, The question arose in a darkhast filed by the decree-holder to execute a decree passed against three defendants, defendant No. 1 being the father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3. What happened was that before the decree was passed the parties entered into a compromise. That compromise was submitted to the Court as defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were minors, and sanctioned by it, and a decree was passed in accordance with it.2. Mr. Joshi says that the debt on which the decree was founded was a debt contracted by the father as manager of a joint Hindu family, and therefore it cannot be executed against the sons personally or against any separate property in their hands. It appears that the sons are now in possession of certain property, which they inherited as reversioners from their mother's mother and Mr. Joshi says that the decree cannot be ...
Shankarappa Kotrabasappa Harpanhalli Vs. Khatumbi Jamaluddinsab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom478; (1932)34BOMLR991
Rangnekar, J.1. This appeal raises an important question of law, which has not come up for decision yet in this Court.2. The plaintiff-appellant brought this suit to recover a one-fifth share in the property in suit by partition and mesne profits. It appears that defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and Aminabi were co-owners of certain property and obtained a decree for possession of the same in suit No. 229 of 1912. On July 8, 1925, Aminabi sold her one-fifth share in the property to the plaintiff by a registered sale deed, and this suit was filed by the plaintiff on that sale deed. The defendants claimed a right of pre-emption. This was, however, found against them and a decree for partition was passed by the trial Court. In appeal by the defendants the question as to the right of pre-emption was given up, and the only point raised was whether the sale deed was void as Aminabi had sold the right to recover mesne profits along with her share, and as a right to recover mesne profits could not be le...
Gordhandas Chhotalal Sheth Vs. Mahant Shri Raghuvirdasji Gangaramji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom539; (1932)34BOMLR1137
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover Rs. 6,860 as principal and Rs. 821-5-3 as interest from the property of the partnership gin factory of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Keshavlal, who was the father of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 and the manager of the joint family of defendantsNos. 5 to 9.2. The learned Judge held that the moneys advanced by the plaintiffs were taken by the deceased Keshavlal for the purposes of the Wadhwan Ginning Factory as its sole managing partner, the other partners of the same being the deceased defendants Nos. 1 and 2, but did not pass a decree against the other partners on the ground that the partnership was not a trading partnership. He passed a decree against defendants Nos. 3 and 4, the sons of Keshavlal, but refused to pass a decree against defendants Nos. 5 to 9, who were members of a joint family which was represented by Keshavlal in the partnership consisting of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and Keshavlal. There is no appeal as against...
Bai Sada Parshottam Vs. Gangaram Becher
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom484; (1932)34BOMLR936
Baker, J.1. The plantiffs as owners of the land described in the plaint sued to recover possession of the laud from the defendants with mesne profits and costs. The defendants pleaded that they were owners of the land, and the plaintiffs' suit was barred, as they had brought a suit for possession previously and possession was not awarded to them. The Second Class Subordinate Judge at Jambusar framed nine issues, but he only decided issuesnot. 5 and 9, whether the claim is barred by res judicata as contended by the defendants, and whether the question of the proof of the plaintiffs' sale deed, dated June 28,1919, and the question of the status as yearly tenants are res judicata as contended by the plaintiffs, respectively. He held that the plaintiffs' claim was not barred as res judicata, a point which does not arise in the present appeal, and he also held that the questions referred to in issue No. 9 and which are incorporated in issues Nos. 1 to 3 are res judicata by reason of the Hig...
Shaikh Yakub Harunkhan Vs. Mahadev Narayan Prabhu Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-04-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom509; (1932)34BOMLR987
Rangnekar, J.1. This appeal must fail. Mr. Desai takes a preliminary point, but I do not express any opinion on it. On the merits the appellants have no case. It appears that a decree for partition was made in this case and in execution of it one of the parties filed a darkhast. The decree was then more than one year old, but the learned Judge acting under sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 of Order XXI, Civil Procedure Code, dispensed with the issue of the notice required by sub-rule (1), He ordered execution to issue and sent the darkhast to the Collector for effecting partition. The Collector then issued notices to the parties, There is no dispute these notices were tendered to the appellants but were not accepted by them. This happened in March 1926. The Collector proceeded with partition and completed it in March 1928. In January 1929 the present appellants made an application to the learned Judge to set aside all the proceedings on the ground that the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 22, were ...
Emperor Vs. Shantaram Rama Wadkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR897
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision by the accused asking us to set aside his conviction by the Second Glass Magistrate of Vengurla under Section 6 of the Motor Vechicles Act, VIII of 1914.2. The facts are that the accused is the owner of a motor car and his driver has a license to drive within the Savantwadi State. On April 30, the driver drove the car beyond the limits of that State in British India and he was charged, therefore, under Section 6 of the Motor Vehicles Act with driving the car beyond the limits of the license. The driver was convicted and no question arises as to his conviction. The present accused as the owner was also convicted under the provision of Section 6 that no owner of a motor vehicle shall allow any person who is not so licensed to drive the car,3. There is no evidence that the accused knew that his driver was going to take the car beyond the limits of the Savantwadi State or that he in any way authorised that act. The learned Distr...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›