Mumbai Court August 1932 Judgments
Official Assignee of Bombay Vs. Chimniram Motilal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-31-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom51
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Official Assignee as representing the estates of defendants 2 and 3, who are insolvents, from a decree passed by Rangnekar, but as it was an ex parte decree the matters which have been argued before us were not discussed before the learned Judge. Two objections are taken by the appellant to the decree; the first is against the plaintiffs in the suit, and the second is against defendant 6 in the suit who was a subsequent mortgagee. I will deal with the case against the plaintiffs first.2. On 11th April 1930, the plaintiffs were given a pledge to secure Rs. 50,000 on machinery, types and other articles appertaining to a printing press known as Shri Yenkateshvar Press, the pledgers being a firm called Khemraj Shrikissondas, who were the original defendants to the suit. On 1st August the plaintiffs commenced the suit to enforce their pledge. On 19th August another suit, was commenced by the person who afterwards became defendant 4 in this suit Murl...
Tag this Judgment!Nilaji Moroba Naik Vs. Nagindas Motilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom168; (1933)35BOMLR150
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover Rs. 7,284-12-0 as the price of 2,428 maunds and seven payalis of paddy on the allegation that the plaint property was let in the year 1853 on a permanent lease to two persons Jayaram and Ramchandra, that the right of cultivation was sold and purchased by one Ganpat Sakharam from whom the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and grandfather of defendants Nos. 3 and 4 purchased it subject to the conditions of the lease in 1886, and that the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 purchased one-twelfth share in the plaint property. The suit was brought in respect of the eleven-twelfths share of the right belonging to the inamdars.2. The defendants contended that they were the owners of the property, that the paddy mentioned in the kowl denoted the Dhara due to the inamdars and the plaintiffs can only claim the Dhara in cash, that no relation of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, and that the defendants gave notice to the plaint...
Tag this Judgment!Alice Rice Vs. S.N. Cama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom404; (1933)35BOMLR840; 147Ind.Cas.579
Kania, J.1. This suit is filed by two daughters and a son of one Hormusji Edulji Cama, who became a convert to Christianity and adopted the name of William Edward Rice, to recover from the defendants, who are the present trustees of the trust deed made by Hormusji Muncherji Cama on January 23, 1872, maintenance and other allowance as provided in the first declaration of Clause 2 of the trust deed. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiffs are the descendants of Hormusji Muncherji Cama. The father of the plaintiffs during his lifetime was working as a preventive officer in the Customs department on a monthly salary of Rs. 600. While he was alive the trustees had paid a sum of Rs. 50 per month to one Mersy Rice, the eldest daughter of Hormusji Edulji Cama. It is alleged in the plaint that Hormusji died on July 7, 1929, without leaving any substantial assets. It is further alleged that the three plaintiffs are being educated at Barnes High School, Deolali, and they have not got the ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Maniben Liladhar Kara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1642
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against her conviction by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under Sections 124A. and 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The charge against the accused is that she made two speeches at a labour meeting on ' May day ' which constituted offences under those two sections. The accused in the written statement she put in before the learned Magistrate says that she is a social worker and has studied social science in England and elsewhere. I am bound to say that; the speeches with which we have to deal do not suggest that she has studied more than one side of the subject, but perhaps it would be unreasonable to expect a labour leader on May day to deliver anything in the nature of an impartial address.2. The first speech which she delivered the learned Magistrate held was unobjectionable, and as that finding has not been challenged in this Court, I need not refer to that speech. The second speech is the one which the learned Magistrate hol...
Tag this Judgment!Basappa Dandappa Patil Vs. Gurlingawa Shivashankreppa Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom137; (1933)35BOMLR75
Patkar, J.1. These appeals raise a novel and important and at the same, time a difficult question of Hindu law which has not been covered by authority.2. Shivlingappa, the father-in-law of the plaintiff, Basappa, defendant No. 1, and Shiddappa, father of defendant No. 2, were brothers and had separated long ago. The property in suit consists of the property which came to the share of Shivlingappa and which was acquired by him with the income of the property that came to him by partition. Shivlingappa died in 1921 and was succeeded by his son Shivshankreppa who died in 1922, The property was inherited by the plaintiff, the widow of Shivshankreppa and the daughter-in-law of Shivlingappa. In 1923 the plaintiff adopted Shidlingappa, the son of defendant No. 1, in dwyamushyayana form. Shidlingappa, after his adoption, died unmarried soon afterwards. The plaintiff, therefore, has brought the suit as heir of her deceased adopted son. Defendant No. 5 is the natural mother of Shidlingappa and t...
Tag this Judgment!Jaichand Somchand Shah Vs. Vithal Bajirao Marathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom109; (1933)35BOMLR83
Patkar, J.1. In this case the respondent, a workman employed in the Khandesh Saw Mill at Nandurbar, received an injury to his right hand in December 1929 and made a claim for compensation in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bombay. The Commissioner awarded Rs. 847 as compensation to the respondent.2. The first point urged in this appeal is that the respondent did not give notice under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, VIII of 1923, The respondent received a serious injury to his right hand and was removed to the dispensary by the employees of the appellant and was in the hospital for one month and twenty days and attended as an outdoor patient for another month. He applied for compensation on several occasions to the appellant and finally in March 1930 made an application in the Court of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, He does not appear to have given written notice to the opposite party but applied verbally. The learned Commissioner he...
Tag this Judgment!Ramgopal Hajarimal Marwadi Vs. Jaitunbai Yasinbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom77; (1932)34BOMLR1677
Patkar, J.1. In this ease a probate was granted on January 15, 1920, to the appellants in respect of property worth Rs. 6,680, The appellants were appointed executors of the deceased testator by his will dated April 17, 1918, The present application was made by the respondent for revocation of the probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, XXXIX of 1925, on the allegation that the will was a forgery. The learned First Class Subordinate Judge, acting under the powers conferred by Section 28A of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, dismissed the application on the ground that in his opinion he was not satisfied that the will was a forgery.2. On appeal, the learned Assistant Judge came to the conclusion that the will, Exhibit 141, was not a genuine will of the deceased Narsingdas, and, therefore, allowed the application and cancelled the probate already granted.3. A preliminary point was raised before the learned Assistant Judge that the appeal did not lie to the Assistant Judge unde...
Tag this Judgment!Bayava Shiddappa Desai Vs. Parvateva Basavaneppa Bellad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom126; (1933)35BOMLR118
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to recover possession of the property in suit on the ground that it belonged to the plaintiff's father Bhojappa bin Shivbasappa, who died in May 1905 leaving a widow Tengava who remarried in 1912 and died in 1916, and that the plaintiff was born two months after Bhojappa's death in July 1905 and was the preferable heir as the unmarried daughter of Bhojappa.2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that Tengava, the plaintiff's mother, was the udki wife of Bhojappa, and in that ease the plaintiff would be the sole heir of Bhojappa, but held that the decree in suit No. 229 of 1906 obtained by defendant No. 1, the daughter of Bhojappa by another wife who had predeceased Bhojappa, operated as res judicata, as in that suit Tengava's udki marriage was held not proved.3. Bhojappa was adopted by Shivbasappa of Hirehattiholi and had two natural brothers Irappa and Baslingappa who lived at Gajapati. The plaintiff's case is that her mother Tengava was marr...
Tag this Judgment!George Anthony Harris Vs. Millicent Spencer
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom370; (1933)35BOMLR708
Wadia, J.1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for revocation of the grant of letters of administration to the estate of one Annie Made Fencer deceased made by this Court to the defendant, who is the full sister of the deceased, on June 25, 1931, on the ground that the grant was obtained by means of false and fraudulent representations contained in her petition for letters of administration. The deceased was a resident of Manmad, but in or about January 1931 she came to Bombay to have an operation performed for removing a cataract in one of her eyes, and she died in the King Edward Memorial Hospital on or about March 3, 1931. The plaintiff is the son of one Christian Harris, who is the son of a predeceased sister of the deceased named Matilda alias Henrietta. The deceased also left her surviving two sons and two daughters by another predeceased sister Ellen and a cousin by the name of John Lastings alias John Spencer. Plaintiff alleges that the deceased left an estate which inter alia c...
Tag this Judgment!Yesubai Vs. Parasram Daji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1932
Reported in: AIR1933Bom21; (1932)34BOMLR1449
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision made from an order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate by which he refused the applicant maintenance which she was claiming under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, It appears that the applicant was married to the opponent in January 1926 when she was a child of some eight years of age. In January 1931 when she was living with her husband she left his house for an hour or two with a man named Gangaram, who is said to be, and I will assume is, a Mahar by caste, and she had sexual intercourse with Gangaram, On her return to the house of her parents-in-law, she told them what had happened and said that the intercourse was against her will. Thereupon they took her to the police and she lodged a complaint against Gangaram of rape and kidnapping, and we have on the record the statements she made to the police, and the statements which her parents-in-law made. Gangaram thereafter disappeared, and therefore the complaint aga...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »