Mumbai Court June 1932 Judgments
Ambalal Hargovind Vs. Ambalal Shivlal Thakor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom34; (1932)34BOMLR1506
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover possession of the two houses in suit on the ground that they belonged to one Chhaganlal Jibhai, the uncle of the plaintiff, who died leaving a will dated May 31, 1898.2. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit softer raising a preliminary issue as follows:-' Does the plaintiff prove that he is the heir ofChhaganlal Jibhai and has he got any right to bring this suit ?' In the lower Court it was understood by this issue that the plaintiff was the heir ofChhaganlal under his will on the assumption of the genuineness of the will so alleged, without taking any evidence in the case. The learned Subordinate Judge on the preliminary point relating to theconstruction of the will held that the plaintiff wag not entitled under the will of Chbaganlal, and had no right to bring this suit under the alleged will of Chhaganlal.3. The genealogy of the family appears on page 2 of the print. Ohhaganlal died on June 20, 1898, lea...
Tag this Judgment!Lassoo and Sons Vs. Krishna Bahadur Nepali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom617; (1932)34BOMLR1401
Wadia, J.1. [His Lordship narrated the facts of the case, discussed the evidence, and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' claim came to Rs. 1,925, The judgment then dealt with the question of set-off: ] Defendants claim to set-off Rs. 1,175 against the plaintiffs' claim, The plaintiffs contend that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the set-off, and that in any event they are not liable to pay Rs. 1,175 to the defendants, but Rs. 300 less, that is to say, Rs. 875, [His Lordship held on evidence that the defendants were entitled to put forward a claim in respect of the full amount of Rs. 1,175, and then preceded: ]2. The important question, however, is whether the defendants are entitled to set off the full sum of Rs. 1,175 against Rs. 1,925 due by them to the plaintiffs. Under Order VIII, Rule 6, of the Civil Procedure Code, a defendant is entitled to set off any ascertained sum of money against the plaintiff if inter alia it is legally recoverable. In this case the am...
Tag this Judgment!Jehangir Shapoorji Taraporevala Vs. Reverend Savarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1609
Wright, J.1. The appellant in the case is a photographer, who in 1913 took a lease for ten years of certain premises owned by the Bombay Tract and Book Society, hereinafter called the society, and later, in 1925, took a renewal of that lease for a further ten years from 1923, In 1927 the society sold the property, subject to the appellant's leasehold interest, to oneKavarana. The appellant claims that this sale was in breach of an obligation undertaken to him by the society in 1913 in consideration of his entering then into the lease, and he claims specific performance as under that obligation. The respondent is sued as secretary of the society which is a charitable society in Bombay, formed according to its memorandum of association to circulate religious tracts, and managed by a committee, and with three trustees in whom its property was vested with powers of disposal. The secretary was named in the regulations as the proper person by whom the society was to sue or be sued The societ...
Tag this Judgment!Hushensab Rajesab Allabaxar Vs. Basappa Puradappa Hallikeri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1325; 140Ind.Cas.736
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued for partition of their two-thirds share against the defendants. Plaintiff No. 1 is the son of defendant No. 1; plaintiff No. 2 is the mother of plaintiff No. 1, and defendants Nos. 2 to 7 are the alienees of the father, defendant No. 1. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the alienations of defendants Nos. 2, 4 and 7 were not binding on plaintiffs, and awarded two-thirds share by partition to plaintiff No. 1, the son, and plaintiff No. 2, the wife of defendant No. 1. This appeal is filed by defendant No. 7,2. The first question urged on behalf of the appellant is that there were antecedent debts of the father, defendant No. 1, for whose payment the sale-deeds were passed in favour of the vendors of the appellant, and therefore the sale-deeds were binding on plaintiff No. 1. The learned Subordinate Judge found that there was a sale-deed in favour of one Amritappa on July 17,1919. Defendant No. 7's vendors were one Parvatibai and Mohodin,...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Keshav Parasharami Vs. Ramnath Radhakisan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom607; (1932)34BOMLR1327; 140Ind.Cas.734
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover Us. 8,000 on a promissory note dated February 22, 1926, passed by defendant No. 2. The plaintiff in the original plaint sued the liquidator of the Sangamner Weavers' Co-operative Society and defendant No. 2, and stated in para. 2 that defendant No. 2 in his capacity as chairman of the Society passed a promissory note, and that statement was repeated in para. 3. By Ex. 22 the plaintiff amended the plaint with the result that the words, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Society' in para. 2 were omitted, and para. 3 was deleted.2. Defendant No. 1 contended that the Co-operative Society was not liable under Section 51 of the Co-operative Societies Act. The learned Joint First Class Subordinate Judge held that defendant No. 2 was liable as he passed the promissory note, and did not in the promissory note intend to exclude his personal responsibility.3. The promissory note is signed by defendant No. 2 the chairman of the Weaving So...
Tag this Judgment!Lasa DIn Vs. Gulab Kunwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1600
George Lowndes, J.1. The only question in this appeal is as to the date upon which the principal money became due under a mortgage of certain immovable property in the Lucknow District. Upon this hangs an important question of limitation, and. the issue of the appeal.2. The mortgage is dated July 26, 1912, and purports to be for six years from that date. Apart, therefore, from the provisions of a particular clause in the deed, to be presently referred to, the mortgage money would have become due on July 26, 1918, and under Article 132 of the first schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, the mortgagee would have a further twelve years in which to bring his suit. The Article runs as follows:__________________________________________Description Period of Time from whichof suit. limitation. periodbegins to run__________________________________________132.-To enforce Twelve When the moneypayment of yeara.... sued formoney charged becornes due.upon immovableproperty.____________________...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chatur Jethaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-17-1932
Reported in: AIR1932Bom551; (1932)34BOMLR1247; 140Ind.Cas.619
Wadia, J.1. The three petitioners were charged with having committed the murder of one Amritlal Vithaldas on the evening of May 15, 1930, and were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad with the help of a jury. They were unanimously acquitted on December 17, 1930. The case against the petitioners was that the first petitioner was present and abetted the murder by one Hamid who shot Amritlal dead on May 15, 1930, and that the second and the third petitioners conspired to get Amritlal shot and murdered. It was found at the commencement of the police investigation that the case was a complicated one, and an application was made that it should be handed over for investigation to the C.I.D., but as no officer of the C.I.D., was available at the moment, the investigation was handed over to Inspector Pathan some time about June 13, 1930, The learned Judge in his long and forceful charge to the jury has made some scathing allegations against Inspector Pathan and the character and ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Housabai Bala Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1240; 140Ind.Cas.740
Wadia, J.1. The appellant in this case was accused No. 2 in case No. 9 of 1982 in the Sessions Court of Satara, and was charged with having committed the murder of the infant child of accused No. 1 on the morning of October 24, 1931, near the Wathar railway station on the Southern Mahratha Railway line, somewhere near the road leading from Wathar to Wai. Accused No. 1 was charged with abetment under Section 109, Indian Penal Code. She was found not guilty, and was acquitted and discharged. The appellant was sentenced to transportation for life with a recommendation for reduction of the sentence.2. The appellant is the widowed daughter and accused No. 1 is the widowed daughter-in-law of one Govind Ganu, and they were all living in the village of Raranjkhop which is about seven miles from Wathar. The prosecution story is that accused No. 1 conceived through her father-in-law Govind. When her pregnancy had advanced about seven months, she was sent out of the village for delivery accompani...
Tag this Judgment!Erroll Mackay Vs. Kameshwar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1596
Wright, J.1. The questions in this appeal are whether the first respondent, who was substituted for his father as defendant on the latter's death, is responsible in damages, and if go, in what sum to the appellant, who was plaintiff in the action, The claim was on a contract dated November 9, 1919, for the sale of 200 maunda of new crop Java indigo seed at Rs. 22 a maund excluding bags, f.o.r. Purnea railway station, delivery to be made in April 1920, the plaintiff paying (as in fact he did) on the date of the contract Rs 1,000 as earnest money. The first question is whether that contract was made, as it purported to be made, by one Hervey (who was on the plaint joined as a defendant in the suit but was dismissed from it on March 12, 1924) as agent for the defendant, who will be hereafter referred to under the description of respondent, which term will be applied equally both to the original and the substituted defendant. Hervey was at the date of the contract manager of the respondent...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›