Mumbai Court November 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.
Manjulabai Kashinath Mantri Vs. Pandurang Jayaram Mantri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom215; (1934)36BOMLR443; 153Ind.Cas.181
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings by the original judgment-creditor in a decree obtained by her in a suit on the original side of the High Court by which she was awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 10 a month and residence against two persons who were brothers of her husband. The decree was obtained on July 15, 1918. It appears that the first judgment-debtor died in 1921 and the second judgment-debtor in 1927, and the names of the legal representatives of neither of them were substituted in their places on the record of the suit. Then for the first time on July 10, 1930, an application was made by the judgment-creditor on the original side of this Court for transfer of the execution proceedings to the Thana Court, and that being granted, the present darkhast has been brought in the Thana Court on July 15, 1930. This darkhast, which is filed against the legal representatives of the two original judgment-debtors, has been opposed by the latter on the ground, amo...
Govind Prasad Vs. Kunwarani Bala Kunwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR232
Thankerton, J.1. This appeal relates to the estate of Dushashan Singh, who died childless on March 21, 1912, leaving a widow, Lachmi Kuer, who died on January 7, 1921. The suit was brought on November 21, 1923, by Kunwarani Bala Kunwar, the niece of Lachmi Kuer, who claimed the estate by virtue of a written will, alleged to have been executed by Dushashan Singh in or about December 1911, some three months before his death, but which had been lost or destroyed and could not be produced. The defendants claim right to the estate as being entitled to the reversionary right on the death of the widow.2. The only issue in the suit was 'Did Dushashan Singh make a will in favour of the plaintiff and is she owner of the property in suit by virtue of the will?' The Additional Subordinate Judge of Mainpuri, before whom the suit was tried, held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the alleged will, and on April 12, 1924, he dismissed the suit. On an appeal by the plaintiff, the High Court of Judi...
Mauladad Khan Vs. Faizullah Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR227
Macmillan, J.1. This is an unusual and a most unfortunate case. It began ten years ago with a suit filed for partnership accounts. The suit was instituted in the Court of the District Judge of Dera Ismail Khan, but was transferred by him to that of the Subordinate Judge, by whom a preliminary decree was passed on October 22, 1923, declaring the shares of the parties in the partnership and ordering accounts to be taken. There was no appeal against this decree.2. On March 24, 1924, the Subordinate Judge passed a final decree under which a sum of Rs. 19,991 was found due to the present appellant Mauladad Khan (who was defendant No. 1 in the suit) by the other parties, who are the respondents before the Board. Appeals followed to the Judicial Commissioner, He set aside the decree of March 24, 1924, and by his order of May 7, 1925, remanded the suit to the District Judge for re-trial by him, but directed in effect that on the re-trial the respondents would only be entitled to dispute the li...
Rajani Kanta Pal Vs. Sajani Sundari Dassya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR230
Macmillan, J.1. This is a suit in which one Sreemati Sajani Sundari Dassya, widow of, the late Jadu Nath, sues for maintenance and the recovery of certain ornaments, the defendants to the suit being her brother-in-law, Rajani Kanta Pal, and others who are called as representatives of her late father-in-law, Madan Mohan.2. In the first Court the plaintiff was held disentitled to any maintenance, though she recovered, their Lordships understand, the value of the ornaments which She claimed, but the learned Judge indicated that if there was any legal liability for maintenance, the appropriate allowance would be at the rate of 20 rupees per month.3. On the case being taken to the High Court the judgment of the Subordinate Judge was in part recalled and liability was held to be established against the defendants for the maintenance of this lady, and the rate of maintenance was fixed at 80 rupees per month.3. In the present appeal, counsel on behalf of the defendant, Rajani Kanta Pal, now th...
Babamiya Dawoodmiya Masankatti Vs. Abdul Karim Mahamadmiya Mulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom216; (1934)36BOMLR437
Murphy, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent on a certificate from the decision of Mr. Justice Barlee, who decided the second appeal; The facts underlying the litigation were as follows:A decree was obtained by two persons, Babamiya walad Dawoodmiya and Abdul Khavdin walad Amirsaheb against Abdul Karim walad Maha-madmiya. It was a consent decree and concerned a piece of land of which the decree-holders were given a share by its terms. The decree was passed in 1923. In 1925 one of the decree-holders, Babamiya, made an application to have the decree executed. In the course of that application Babamiya stated:The plaintiff No. 2 has relinquished his right over the property in question when the suit was going on. Therefore the first plaintiff alone has given this darkhast. 'The order made on the application was:Applicant writes that plaintiff No. 2 has relinquished his rights over the property in suit. He should put in papers in support of that statement.2. Some months after a p...
Emperor Vs. Onkardas Kishoredas Wani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR217
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision which raises a question under the Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. III of 1901). The petitioner is the owner of a house in Nandurbar. The western wall of his house was in a bad state of repair, and the Municipality of Nandurbar issued a notice to the petitioner to take it down. The petitioner thereupon removed the wall and applied to the Municipality for permission to rebuild. That application was properly made under Section 96(1) of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The Municipality gave the permission subject to the condition that the wall should be set back a certain specified distance from the street. The petitioner, however, reconstructed the wall without complying with this condition, and was prosecuted for so doing under Section 96(5) of the Act, was convicted and fined Rs. 10. He appealed to the District Magistrate of West Khandesh and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner now applies in revision.2. The questi...
Onkardas Kishoredas Wani Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-15-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom154; 148Ind.Cas.1008
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an application in revision which raises a question under the Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. III of 1901). The petitioner is the owner of a house in Nandurbar. The western wall of his house was in a bad state of repair, and the Municipality of Nandurbar issued a notice to the petitioner to take it down. The petitioner thereupon removed the wall and applied to the Municipality for permission to rebuild. That application was properly made under Section 93(1) of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The Municipality gave the permission subject to the condition that the wall should be set back a certain specified distance from the street. The petitioner, however, reconstructed the wall without complying with this condition and was prosecuted for so doing under Section 96(5) of the Act, was convicted and fined Rs. 10. He appealed to the District Magistrate of West Khandesh and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner now applies in revision.2. The question turns pr...
Emperor Vs. Samat Kala
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom156; (1934)36BOMLR210
Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the accused was tried by the Sessions Judge of Kaira with assessors on a charge under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and he was convicted under Section 304, that is to say, of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment. From that conviction he appealed, and the Government of Bombay have also appealed against his acquittal under Section 302. The evidence against the accused consisted of four eye-witnesses, who say that on the day of a Holi holiday a squabble arose, and the accused's brothers at the instance of the accused started to beat one Gema, who had alleged that the accused had stolen his son's ear-rings. The deceased interposed and rebuked the accused and his brothers. Thereupon the accused came up behind the deceased and gave him a blow with a dharia which penetrated the skull. The blow was a very severe one. According to the medical evidence it inflicted a wound 5' long, 5/6' broad, and 1' de...
Ramgopal Chunilal Vs. Ramsarup Baldevdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom91; (1934)36BOMLR84
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal raises a question under the Indian Limitation Act. There are really two distinct points. First, what is the date on which the cause of action arose, and, secondly, when was the suit instituted within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Limitation Act. As regards the first point, the suit is a suit for the recovery of differences upon certain contracts. There were four contracts entered into by the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant. They were all for April-May 1929 delivery. Each of the first two contracts was for the purchase of one hundred bales of cotton, and each of the other two contracts was for the sale of one hundred bales. The due date under all the contracts was May 25, 1929. The defendant's contention is that the two contracts for sale cancelled the two contracts for purchase, and the defendant's liability to pay the difference arose on that cancellation; and if that is so, the cause of action arose sometime in 1928 and the suit w...
Datto Shivram Gosavi Vs. Baba Saheb Malhar Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom194; (1934)36BOMLR359; 150Ind.Cas.555
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the lands described in the suit, and certain mesne profits. The suit failed in the. lower Court because the learned Judge held in effect that the defendant was a permanent tenant. The three issues in the lower Court were:1. Is the permanent tenancy alleged by the defendant proved?2. Is the suit barred by time by reason of defendant's possession as a permanent tenant to the knowledge of the plaintiff for more than twelve years before suit?3. Is plaintiff estopped in any way from bringing this suit?2. All these issues were answered in the affirmative. The real question in this appeal is whether the defendant's permanent tenancy is proved. Now, it is suggested that permanent tenancy of the suit lands was granted to the predecessor of the defendant by the predecessor of the plaintiff by a document dated February 17, 1865. The learned Subordinate Judge ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›