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.
Maruti Gangaram Satpute Vs. Bankatlal Shivabakas Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom313; (1933)35BOMLR576; 145Ind.Cas.405
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision in which I am asked to set aside an order of the Collector of Ahmednagar made under Section 23 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act (Bombay Act II of 1906). The petitioner filed a suit No. 10 of 1931 against the respondent in the Mamlatdar's Court claiming an injunction to restrain the respondent from disturbing the petitioner in possession of the lands in dispute. The Mamlatdar after hearing the evidence gave the injunction asked for. The respondent then applied to the Collector under Section 23 of the Act, and the Collector set aside the Mamlatdar's order on the ground that the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction in the matter. The learned Collector took a view of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act with which I find myself wholly unable to agree. He held that Sub-section (2) of Section 5 did not justify the issuing of an injunction against a person who had been a former owner of the petitioner's land. Now Section 5, Sub-section (1),. of the Ac...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Javerchand Panaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom314; (1933)35BOMLR583; 145Ind.Cas.408
Patkar, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued the Secretary of State for a declaration of his title to a portion of the land situate to the east of survey No. 452 on the allegation that he purchased the land survey No. 451, and that he had acquired title to the laud in dispute by adverse possession.2. It appears that one Ranchhod Rama, the holder of survey No. 452, made an application to the revenue authorities for determination of the boundary between survey No. 451 and survey No. 452 on February 12, 1918. The matter was referred to the Mahalkari and the Circle Inspector. On October 29, 1918, it was found that survey No. 452 was encroached upon and on January 4, 1922, the District Deputy Collector referred the applicant to a civil Court. It appears, however, that this order was set aside on appeal, and on March 22, 1923, the District Deputy Collector passed an order, Exhibit 38, holding that the property in dispute formed part of survey No. 452 and ordered the eviction of the plaintiff...
Dharamdas Kachudas Vs. Kachudas Makanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom182; (1933)35BOMLR298
Mirza, J.1. These are two applications (1) by the next friend of the minor plaintiff in the first suit and (2) by the same person as guardian ad litem of the same minor as defendant No. 2 in the second suit, for a change of attorney order. The application was first made before me on January 12, 1933, when an order drawn up in the usual form followed in the Prothonotary's office was presented before me for approval and fiat. On that occasion the former attorneys Messrs. Damania & Co. appeared by counsel and objected to the order being made. Thereupon the matter was transferred to counsel's list for today and has again come up before me. The order which was sought on January 12, 1933, in each case included this provision : 'that the said Messrs. Damania & Co. do deliver over to the said Messrs. Kharas & Co. all documents, vouchers and proceedings whatsoever relating to the said suit as are in their possession or power on payment of their taxed costs.' It is conceded on behalf of the appl...
Emperor Vs. Krishna Babaji Chavan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR371; 145Ind.Cas.133
Broomfield, J.1. The accused has been convicted of the murder of his wife Mukta and sentenced to transportation for life. Mukta, who appears to have been a woman of very bad character and was reputed to have several lovers, lived with her husband, the accused, at Soni, a village in the Tasgaon taluka. Early on the morning of June 4, 1932, she was found lying dead in the angan of her house with her skull fractured. There was a heavy stone weighing thirty-eight seers lying close to the body. It was obviously a case of murder.2. A witness Vithu Jayaji, Ex. 10, has deposed that as ho was passing by the accused's house early in the morning on his way to his field he heard cries in the compound and the accused came out of his house and said: 'I was sleeping inside and she was sleeping outside, some one has murdered her, go and inform the Police Patel.' The witness says that at that time he saw a heavy stone lying near the corpse. He went and gave the information to the Patel, who reported th...
Sahu Har Prasad Vs. Fazal Ahmad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR496
Dinshah Mulla, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated March 19, 1929, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pilibhit dated July 6, 1925.2. The question involved in the appeal is as to the effect of a wakfnama executed by a Mahomedan purdanashin lady under the following circumstances:-On August 29, 1912, Manzur Ahmad, a Sunni Mahomedan governed by the Hanafi law, executed a document purporting to be a sale of two villages, one situated in Pilibhit district and the other in Bareilly District, in favour of his mother Rahim Bibi for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000. It was recited in the deed that Rs. 10,000 had been paid by Rahim Bibi. As to the balance of Rs. 1,90,000, it was stated in the deed that it was left with Rahim Bibi 'with instructions that she should spend it at her discretion in charitable purposes for the eternal benefit of my (i.e., Manzur Ahmad's), soul.3. Manzur Ahmad die...
Suleman Haji Ahmed Umar Vs. P.N. Patell
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom381; (1933)35BOMLR722; 145Ind.Cas.557
Wadia, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this suit to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 5,269-12-0 or such other sum as may be fixed by the Court by way of damages for breach of an alleged agreement to take a lease of the premises in suit for a period of five years at the rate of Rs. 325 per month commencing from March 1, 1924. Plaintiff and his father carried on business in Bombay in partnership in the name of Haji Ahmed Umar and Son up to June 1924, when the plaintiff's father died, leaving the plaintiff who was his only child as his sole heir and legal representative. During his lifetime plaintiff's father had purchased a property at Warden Road, Bombay, known as Ahmed Mansion, the conveyance of which was taken in the name of the plaintiff and his father as joint tenants. After his father's death the plaintiff became and still is the sole owner of the said property. On February 4 or 5, 1924, plaintiff says that he had a conversation on the premises with the defendant about letting to t...
Kalawati Devi Vs. Dharam Prakash
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR487
Thankerton, J.1. The appellant is a widow of Ram Saran Das, a Hindu, who died in December, 1896, without issue, but leaving two widows, namely, (1) the appellant, Musammat Kalawati, and (2) Musammat Basanti, and his mother, Musammat Bhawan Kunwar. He left considerable property, moveable and immoveable, and shortly before his death he had executed a will on December 6, 1896, under which he made the appellant the absolute owner of his property and gave her full powers of disposal and alienation in any way she liked. He also fixed certain allowances for Musammat Basanti and Musammat Bhawan Kunwar and made provision for a residence for them. As regards adoption, he made the following provision, viz.:-I authorise Musammat Kalawati to adopt when she wishes, after my death, anybody whom she likes. After making an adoption, Musammat Kalawati or the (adopted) son shall have no power to make a transfer of my property till the lifetime of Musammat Kalawati. Musammat Kalawati shall act as guardian...
Bahu Rani Vs. Rajendra Bakhsh Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR490
John Wallis, J.1. The plaintiff instituted this suit in the Chief Court of Oudh for a declaration that he was the adopted son Mahabir Baksh Singh and that the deed of gift executed by the first defendant, who is the widow of Mahabir's elder brother, Mahesh Baksh Singh, in favour of the second defendant was not binding beyond her own life-time. As the valuationn of the suit proved to be under five lakhs of rupees it was insufficient to give the Oudh Chief Court original juristiction, and the plaint was amended by claiming reliefs as to other properties as well, but these claims are none the subject of this appeal as they failed before Pullan J., the trial Judge, and were given up at the hearing of the appeal inn the Chief Court. Pullan J. gave the plaintiff a declaration as to the adoption, and otherwise dismissed the suit. The Chief Court modified this decree by giving the plaintiff a declaration as to the deed of gift as well. From this decree the defendants have preferred the present...
Shridhar Vaman Joshi Vs. Ramchandra Narayan Tipse
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom297; (1933)35BOMLR573; 145Ind.Cas.581
Rangnekar, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for redemption filed by several persons, most of whom were agriculturists within the meaning of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, against the representatives of their mortgagee. It is common ground that the suit is governed by the provisions of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and both the lower Courts have proceeded on that footing. Accounts were taken by the trial Court, and in appeal the judgment of that Court was substantially confirmed.2. In second appeal the only point taken by Mr. Joshi on behalf of the appellants-plaintiffs is that the lower Courts were wrong in allowing interest at twelve per cent, on the mortgage amount to the mortgagees. By the mortgage bond the ancestors of the plaintiffs mortgaged certain property for Rs. 201, and it was agreed that the amount should be repaid after twenty-live years. Half of this amount, i. e., Rs. 101, was not to bear any interest, but the mortgagee was to be in possession of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›