Mumbai Court April 1933 Judgments
Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Basant Rai Takhat Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR823
Tomlin, J.1. This is an appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax of the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated July 10, 1931, upon a reference of questions made to the High Court by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.2. The question arises in this way : The assessee is a Hindu undivided family. The assessment in question was an assessment made for the year 1929-30, The assessee was assessed on an income of Rs. 57,979. Of this Rs. 14,425 were derived from property owned by the assessee and were assessed under Section 9 of the Indian Income-tax Act. The remainder, Rs. 43,554, were assessed under Section 12 and were derived from the rents of buildings erected by the assessee upon land leased from the Agra Cantonment authority.3. The assessee appealed and his appeal was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner. He then applied under Section 66 that certain questions of law alleged t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Narayan Khanderao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom436; (1933)35BOMLR950; 145Ind.Cas.588
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Wadia. The applicant as the mother and natural guardian of the minor sons applied for the grant of a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Mr. Justice Wadia declined to grant the certificate unless the guardian got herself appointed guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act. We were referred to various authorities. There is a case of this Court, Gulabchand v. Moti I.L.R. (1900) 25 Bom. 523 3 B om. L.R. 795 which the learned Judge followed. In that case the Court held that a succession certificate can be granted to the guardian of a minor who had been appointed as such under the Guardians and Wards Act; but the case did not decide that a certificate could not be granted in the absence of such an appointment. We were also referred to cases of other High Courts in which certificates have been granted where no appointment of the guardian has been made under the Guardians and Wa...
Tag this Judgment!Sarafalli Mahomedalli Vs. Mahasukhbhai Jechandbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom476; (1933)35BOMLR965; 147Ind.Cas.426
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal brought under the Letters Patent from the decision of the District Judge of Broach and Panchmahals. The plaintiff sued the defendants for the balance of moneys due and the balance was secured by a promissory note dated August 31, 1926, signed by defendant No. 2. The plaintiff's case was that defendant No. 3 was a partner of defendant No. 2 and that he was liable for the amount due. The issues raised in the trial Court were (1) whether defendant No. 3 was a partner of defendant No. 2 in the firm in question, and (2) whether defendant No. 3 was liable for the claim in suit. The trial Judge held that defendant No. 3 was a partner in the firm and that he was liable for the claim in suit. In the lower appellate Court it seems to have been assumed that the plaintiff's case was based on the promissory note, and as the promissory note was signed only by defendant No. 2, the learned pleader for the plaintiff felt doubtful whether he could susta...
Tag this Judgment!Bapu Appa Hakke Vs. Kashinath Balu Bhoj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom113; (1934)36BOMLR140; 150Ind.Cas.837
Baker, J.1. This appeal raises a point of Hindu Law which has not yet formed the subject of judicial decision. The facts are simple. A woman named Rakhma was twice married. By her first husband Narsu she had a son Bali, who died in 1924, and by her second marriage she had a son Bapu, the present defendant. Bali left two widows. The property in question is admittedly stridhan property of Rakhma, and the question is whether her sons by two different husbands inherit it, or whether Bapu, the son of the second husband, is the sole heir. The plaintiff is a purchaser of half of the share in the property from the widows of Bali. There has been a lengthy argument on this point with, quotations from the original text of Manu and the Mitakshara, but it has to be admitted that this point is not covered by the texts or by authority The texts do not recognize the remarriage of a Hindu widow, and the arguments have to proceed on analogy, the principal contention of the appellant being that as by rem...
Tag this Judgment!Kumaravelu Chettiar Vs. T.P. Ramaswami Ayyar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR827
Blanesburgh, J.1. At Tiruchendur in the Tinnevelly District, there is a temple dedicated to Subrahmanyaswami described by the appellants as a public temple of classic fame and great antiquity, open to and attended by all non-Panchama non-polluting Hindus from all parts of India, of all sects, including the appellants' 'community of the Vaniyar Vaisyas.' In the suit, out of which this appeal arises, the appellants 'for themselves and as representatives of all members of Tiruchendur Vaniya Vaisyas' set up a right to worship in the Inner Mayil Mahamantapam of the temple. The defendants were the trustees of the temple, certain sthanikars and servants under the control of the trustees and three members of the Vellala community of Tiruchendur. They were sued 'for themselves, and as representatives of all persons similarly interested in the subject matter of the suit.' The suit was filed under Order I, Rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code-a rule to which full reference must later be made, and ...
Tag this Judgment!Mian Feroz Shah Vs. Sohbat Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR877
George Lowndes, J.1. These are consolidated cross-appeals. Only the first of them has been seriously contested. In this, Mian Feroz Shah is the appellant, and Nawab Mohammad Akbar Khan the only appearing respondent, and they will be so referred to in this judgment,2. Of the second appeal, their Lordships need only say that there is no valid ground upon which the decision of the Judicial Commissioner can be attacked.3. The appeals arise out of a series of complicated transactions which are fully detailed in the judgments below, and it is not necessary to set them out again. It will be sufficient to state the main facts upon which the contentions of the parties turn.4. One Sohbat Khan, who is a pro forma party to both appeals, was the owner of a considerable area of land in the village of Sheiku in the Peshawar District, On March 12, 1917, he mortgaged 1011 kanals, 8 marlas to the appellant and his brother. It is not disputed that the appellant is now solely entitled under this mortgage....
Tag this Judgment!Kodoth Ambu Nair Vs. Echikan Cherekere Kelu Nair
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-10-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR807
George Lowndes, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the respondent is entitled to redeem a certain mortgage. If this right, which has been affirmed by both Courts in India, is exereisable, it is not disputed that the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge on August 16, 1924, is correct.2. The mortgage in question was dated December 8, 1892, and was executed by members of the Beloor Maloor Tarwad in favour of the appellant. On, September 13, 1897, the appellant brought a suit on the mortgage which was compromised, and a decree dated January 2, 1899, was passed in accordance with the compromise. The terms of this decree were in effect that the mortgagors should pay to the appellant within three years a sum of Rs. 31,000, together with a yearly rent in kind : that in default of payment of the Rs. 31,000, or of the rent, the appellant should be entitled to obtain, by process of execution, possession of the property, and to retain the same as usufructuary mortgagee, the mortgag...
Tag this Judgment!Sayamma Dattatraya Narsingrao Vs. Punamchand Raichand Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom413; (1933)35BOMLR850; 147Ind.Cas.1096
Baker, J.1. The plaintiff had taken in pledge certain ornaments from defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 asked for the loan of the ornaments for a festive occasion, promising to return them within a few days. The plaintiff allowed him to take them, but defendant No. 1 did not return them, and disposed of them elsewhere. Thereupon the plaintiff charged him with offences under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, criminal breach of trust, and Section 420, Indian Penal Code, cheating. During the pendency of the complaint the matter was settled by defendant No. 1, his brother-in-law defendant No. 2, and defendant No. 3 who is a sister of defendant No. 2, passing two promissory notes of Rs. 7,500. The plaintiff sued on these promissory notes, and the First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona has given him a decree. Defendant No. 3 has appealed, and the principal ground taken in appeal is that the consideration for the notes being the withdrawal of the complaint, is against the provisions of Section 23...
Tag this Judgment!Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar Rai Vs. Sanatan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR859
George Lowndes, J.1. This appeal raises an important question with regard to the validity of an adoption by a Hindu widow.2. The facts upon which the decision turns may be stated quite shortly. The issue involved is as to the right of succession (using the word in its widest significance) to the Dompara raj, an impartible zemindari in Orissa. The early history of the raj is dealt with at length in the judgments below, and it is unnecessary to refer to it for the purposes of this appeal. The parties are Kshatriyas by caste, and are governed, apart from special family custom, by the Benares school of the Mitakshara law. The following pedigree will show the relationship of the persons to whom reference will have to be made, the successive holders of the estate being denominated by the title of Raja :- Krishna Chandra | --------------------------------------- | | Raja Kishori Madan Singh | | Raja Raghunath Clientarmoni | | Raja Rajendra = Rani Indumati Banamali | -------------------- | ...
Tag this Judgment!Dhanrajgirji Narsingirji Vs. Payne and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom317; (1933)35BOMLR554; 145Ind.Cas.641
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Mirza on a motion taken out by the attorneys for the defendant in a suit against Messrs. Payne & Co., who were solicitors for the alleged plaintiff in the suit, and the motion asks that Messrs. Payne & Co. be ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the suit less certain costs which the defendant had already been directed to bear. The ground on which the motion was based was that the plaintiff in the suit is a non-existent person, and the appellant contends that the English rule which in such a case imposes upon the solicitor purporting to act for a non-existent person liability to pay costs should be held to apply in India.2. The suit was started by the presentation of a plaint on November 24, 1931, and on the previous day there was a request by Messrs. Payne & Co. to file an appearance, that request being in Form No. 2 of the Forms to the High Court Rules. In December there was a summons for directions, and on Februa...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›