Mumbai Court April 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 Balwant Rangne Vs. Dattatraya Ramchandra Vishnuprasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom26; (1932)34BOMLR1469
Baker, J.1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that they were the managers and owners of the plaint property and had the right of collecting the income of it and for an injunction directing defendant No. 1 not to collect the income of the property from the tenants, defendants Nos. 2 to 27, and to recover mesne profits as the income already collected by defendant No. 1 with future mesne profits and costs. Subsequently by Exhibit 84 at the end of the case they applied to amend their plaint by adding a prayer for possession. That application was granted although no formal amendment was made in the plaint.2. The facts of the case are that certain lauds-or the income of certain lands it is not clear which-were granted to a shrine at Mahuli of Jivanram Swamy, the family of the plaintiffs being the vahivatdars. The Sanad was given to one Govindbhat bin Rambhat who had two sons Ramchandrabhat and Haribhat. Ramchandrabhat was the father of the present plaintiffs. Haribhat sold the suit prope...
Lakshmishankar Kanji Rawal Vs. the Gresham Life Assurance Society Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom582; (1932)34BOMLR1295
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff, the brother of one Maganlal, whose life was insured with the defendant company, on May 8, 1924, for Rs. 5,000.2. In the proposal form, Exhibit 74, the deceased Maganlal agreed that the proposal and the declaration as well as the replies to the questions put to him by the medical examiner shall be the basis of the contract between him and the said company, and the same agreement is embodied in the policy, Exhibit 17.3. The lower Court has found that the answers in the proposal form to questions Nos. 8 and 9 are false. Those questions are 'Has your life been previously proposed for assurance ?' The answer is 'No.' Question No. 9: 'Is your life now assured, and for what amount ?' The answer is ' No '. There is no doubt that the answer to the question No. 8 is false but it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the answer in the negative was not false to the knowledge of Maganlal for it had been written not by Maganlal but by the age...
Lakshmi Shankar Kanji Rawal Vs. the Gresham Life Assurance Society Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1932
Reported in: 140Ind.Cas.575
Patkar, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiff, the brother of one Maganlal, whose life was insured with the defendant company, on May 8, 1924, for Rs. 5,000.2. In the proposal form, Ex. 74, the deceased Maganlal agreed that the proposal and the declaration as well as the replies to the questions put to him by the medical examiner shall be the basis of the contract between him and the said company, and the same agreement is embodied in the policy, Ex. 17.3. The lower Court has found that the answers in the proposal form to questions Nos. 8 and 9 are false. Those questions are, 'Has your life been previously proposed for assurance?' The answer is 'No.' Question No. 9: 'Isyour life now assured, and for what amount?' The answer is 'No'. There is no doubt that the answer to the question No. 8 is false but it is urged on behalf of the appellant that the answer in the negative was not false to the knowledge of Maganlal for it had been written not by Maganlal but by the agent of the co...
Vishnu Shankar Kulkarni Vs. Shankar Vasudeo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom123; (1933)35BOMLR114
Baker, J.1. This appeal and S.A. No. 349 of 1929 were originally set down for argument before me sitting alone, but it was contended by the learned advocates for the respondents that an important point of law common to both appeals should be heard by a bench, namely, whether Shet Sanadi lands are watan lands or not, and it was stated that the view taken by this Court in Limbaji v. Rama(1), that Shet Sanadi lands were hereditary, was not accepted by Government, who in a subsequent Government Resolution resolved that Shet Sanadi lands were not watan property, and that as in one of these two cases the Judge had followed Limbaji v. Rama, and in the other he had not, the matter should be referred to a Division Bench. The appeals have been accordingly heard by a Bench, but when the appeals came to be argued, other points have arisen, and it is not, as a matter of fact, strictly correct to say that the point regarding the nature of Sanadi lands as watan lands is sufficient for the decision of...
Shantilal Mewaram Vs. Munshilal Kewalram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom498; (1932)34BOMLR862
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Rangnekar. The plaintiffs are suing defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are father and son, for a sum of Rs. 26,844-13-0 and interest, the money being due in respect of transactions in cotton and silver carried out by the plaintiffs as agents for defendant No. 1 between the months of January and September 1928. At the trial the plaintiffs obtained a decree against defendant No. 1 for the amount claimed. Defendant No. 1 had set up a defence that the transactions in suit were void, but the learned Judge decided against those contentions, and there is no appeal from that part of the judgment. Defendant No. 2 succeded in the suit, which was dismissed as against him, and the question we have to determine is whether that decision is right or wrong.2. The original case of the plaintiffs was that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 owned a joint family business in respect of which these debts were incurred, but that contention was giv...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›