Mumbai Court January 1933 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.
Savant Yellappa Shahapure Vs. Bharmappa Nogappa Lengade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom306; (1933)35BOMLR604
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge, Belgaum. The suit is brought by the plaintiffs under Section 15 I) of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act asking for an account. For the purposes of Court-fee the claim was valued at Rs. 5 which would' be sufficient if the claim is merely one for an account. The learned trial Judge raised certain issues of which the first was, whether the transaction evidenced by the sale-deed dated April 29, 1915, was really a mortgage, and he answered that issue in the negative. It is apparent from that, and from the statement of the plaintiffs' case in the learned Judge's judgment, that the plaintiffs were alleging that a document, in form of a sale deed, was in fact a mortgage and that the transaction was a mortgage transaction. In the lower appellate Court a preliminary objection was taken that the plaint and memorandum of appeal were insufficiently stamped and that the suit was not properly brought under Sec...
Mukund Bapu Jadhav Vs. Tanu Sakhu Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom457; (1933)35BOMLR1033
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the Assistant Judge of Satara raising a point of practice which has given rise to some difference of opinion amongst the High Courts. So far as respondents Nos. 2 and 6 are concerned, they have died and their heirs have not been brought on the record. Therefore, as against them, the appeal abates, and our decision does not affect them. Mr. Koyajee, who appeared for the heirs of respondent No. 6, admits that as his clients are not on the record he has no locus standi, but he has been good enough to assist us in the capacity of amicus curice by arguing against the appellant.2. The point which arises for decision is whether the applicant, having obtained an order for possession under Order XXI, Rule 35, which has been obstructed, and having raised no objection to the obstruction within thirty days, is at liberty to apply for a fresh order for possession.3. The facts giving rise to the application are these.4. In March 1...
Emperor Vs. Mir Mazarali Inayatali Kureshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR474
Murphy, J.1. This is an application to revise the order of the learned Sessions Judge of Poona dismissing the applicant's appeal from the decision of the Assistant Sessions Judge of Poona. The applicant and a second offender were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Poona with the aid of a jury on a charge under a 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The jury's verdict was unanimous, and, in accordance with it, the accused were convicted of the offence with which they had been tried and sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts which were alleged against the accused were that a woman named Chandrabhaga, who seems to have abandoned her husband and thereafter for sometime to have lived a wandering life, probably with prostitutes, complained to the Head Constable in charge of the police-station at Ghodnadi that she had been abducted and raped by a certain person. Her complaint was recorded and an investigation into it was begun by the Head Constable and was ultimately taken...
Vishwanath Raghunath Kale Vs. Mahadeo Rajaram Saraf
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom252; (1933)35BOMLR471
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application to revise an order made by the Small Causes Court Judge at Nasik. The learned Judge dismissed the plaintiffs' suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs sued on a promissory note dated May 29, 1925. There were various part payments of principal secured by that note. The first payment was made on October 18, 1925, the second on November 4, 1926, and the third on October 5, 1927, all those being within three years from the date of the promissory note. Then there was a fourth payment made on June 2, 1928, and on that date an acknowledgment was signed by the defendant admitting all the pass payments including the payment on June 2, 1928. This suit was brought on June 4, 1931. It is admitted by the defendant that the Court was closed on June 2 and 3, 1931, and therefore, although the period of limitation prescribed by Article 73 of the Indian Limitation Act expired on June 2, 1931, under Section 4 the plaintiffs would hav...
The Poona City Municipality Vs. R.N. Paranjpe and Sons
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom296; (1933)35BOMLR581; 145Ind.Cas.578
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application to the Court to review an order made by the Small Causes Court Judge of Poona. The plaintiffs who are the Municipality of Poona City are suing to recover a sum of Rs. 34-8-0 which they say is due to them in respect of octroi on certain goods which belonged to the defendants. It appears that the plaintiffs purchased certain chemicals in casks from the defendants and they delivered to the defendants a bill in respect of the octroi payable on those chemicals making an allowance in respect of the weight of the casks, but by an error too big an allowance was made ; that is to say, the weight of the casks was inaccurately ascertained, and in the result the plaintiffs charged octroi less by this sum of Rs. 34-8-0 than they were entitled to charge, and they sue the defendants for the balance. The learned Small Causes Court Judge held that the suit did not lie, and we are asked to review that order.2. In my opinion the learned Judge was right in hold...
The Bandra Municipality Vs. Vanechand Punamchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom353; (1933)35BOMLR599
Rangnekar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Bandra Municipality to recover the amount of house tax, water tax, and sanitary cess from the defendant either personally or from his property. The Municipality claimed a first charge on the property for the payment of these taxes. The claim was resisted by the defendant both on facts and on law. The trial Court found that the defendant was not liable personally to pay the taxes, but as the defendant had purchased the property and had become the owner of it in November 1927, the plaintiff' Municipality was entitled to a charge on the property in respect of the same. The defendant appealed to the District Court. In appeal the defendant did not resist the claim as regards the house tax, but contended that the arrears for the sanitary cess and water tax could not be a charge on the property. The Municipality curiously enough did not file cross-objections to the decree disallowing the claim personally against the defendant. Th...
Bandra Municipality Vs. Venechand Punamchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1933
Reported in: 149Ind.Cas.28
Rangnekar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the Bandra Municipality to recover the amount of house-tax, water-tax, and sanitary cess from the defendant either personally or from his property. The Municipality claimed a first charge on the property for the payment of these taxes. The claim was resisted by the defendant both on facts and on law. The trial Court found that the defendant was not liable personally to pay the taxes, but as the defendant had purchased the property and had become the owner of it in November 1927, the plaintiff Municipality was entitled to a charge on the property in respect of the same. The defendant appealed to the District Court. In appeal the defendant did not resist the claim as regards the house-tax, but contended that the arrears for the sanitary cess and water-tax, could not be a charge on the property. The Municipality, curiously enough, did not file cross objections to the decree disallowing the claim personally against the defendant. ...
Emperor Vs. Gopal Shinde Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom234; (1933)35BOMLR376; 145Ind.Cas.138
Murphy, J.1. This matter arises out of a reference which has been made by the learned Sessions Judge of Kanara on the following facts.2. Two persons were being prosecuted in the Court of the City Magistrate, Karwar, under Section 45 (c) of the Bombay Abkari Act. At the commencement of the case, the prosecution was undertaken by the Abkari Inspector, and the accused objecting to this procedure, the learned Magistrate made an order against them and directed that the prosecution should proceed as already started. One of the accused applied to the learned Sessions Judge under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Judge has referred the matter to this Court, his opinion being that under Section 495 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Akbari' Inspector is not competent to conduct the prosecution, as he comes within the connotation of the expression 'an officer of police' in that sub-section.3. There is no direct authority for the view adopted by the learned Sessions Judge, ...
Yellappa Yellappa Kammar Vs. Fakira Variyappa Barki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom303; (1933)35BOMLR578
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Dharwar, and the case is in a rather unsatisfactory position. The plaintiffs sue for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession of a certain piece of land, and in the alternative, if the plaintiffs are not in possession, then they ask that they may be given possession. The only issues framed in the trial were :-(1) Does plaintiff prove the title of his vendor to the suit site [This was answered in the affirmative.](2) Does plaintiff prove his possession of the suit site [This was also answered in the affirmative.](3) Is he entitled to the injunction sought [This was also answered in the affirmative.]The defendants then appealed, and in the first instance the appeal was heard by the District Judge ex parte. The learned Judge, as I understand his judgment, disagreeed with the findings of fact of the trial Judge. The trial Judge had held that the plot of land in question ...
Mahanth Ram Charan Das Vs. Munshi Naurangi Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR530
Russell, J.1. The question for determination on this appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation.2. The relevant facts must first be stated. In December 1909, one Rampat Das was the Mahant of a Math situate at Paliganj in Patna district. On December 21, 1909, he executed a mukarrari or permanent lease of some seventy acres of land to Munshi Naurangi Lal under which the latter paid a premium and an annual rent to the Mahant, On February 13, 1911, he executed a sale-deed of the land subject to and with the benefit of the lease to Mussammat Sampat Kuer in consideration of Rs. 900. Each document states that it is executed by the Mahant for the expenses and necessities of the Math, but in view of the findings at the trial these statements may be disregarded, and it must be taken that neither of these documents was executed for legal necessity or was for the benefit of the Math or the deities installed therein.3. Mahant Rampat Das died in or about July, 1913. On his death ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »