Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1933)35BOMLR1076
Russell, J.1. In this appeal there arose a point to be primarily argued and decided, viz., the question whether certain evidence recorded in an earlier suit was admissible as evidence in the suit out of which this appeal arises. Their Lordships having already expressed to the parties the conclusion which they had reached, viz., that the evidence in question was admissible, now proceed to state the reasons upon which that conclusion was based.2. The relevant facts must first be stated. In the year 1873 the then Rajah of Pittapur, Gangadhara Rama Rao (who may be conveniently referred to as the late Rajah), having had no son born to him, adopted Ramakrishna, the son of the Rajah of Venkatagiri. It is alleged that on October 5, 1885, the late Rajah's wife, Mangayamma, gave birth to a son, who is the plaintiff in the present suit and respondent to this appeal, and who will be referred to as the plaintiff. The late Rajah died in the year 1890, leaving his estate to the plaintiff by a will in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1933)35BOMLR884
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The two applicants were convicted by the second class Magistrate of Islampur under Section 22 of the Indian Arms Act (XI of 1878), and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10 each, or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days.2. The facts of the case are not disputed. On October 6, 1928, applicant No. 1 sold a sword-stick to applicant No. 2. Applicant No. 1 had no license to sell arms, nor had applicant No. 2 any license to possess or carry arms. By a notification No. 1234-Pol. of August 3, 1925, the Government of Bombay, in exercise of the powers conferred on them by entry No. 1 in the table subjoined to Schedule II appended to the Indian Arms Rules, 1924, declared that swords with the exception of certain kinds, which were specifically mentioned, were subject to all the provisions contained in the Indian Arms Act, throughout the whole presidency. It is admitted that sword-sticks have not been excluded specifically under item No. (3) of the table annexed to thi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom6; (1933)35BOMLR1101
W. Baker, Acting C.J.1. This appeal raises a number of questions of law, The plaintiffs, as representatives of the khatedara and inhabitants of the village of Ralej in Borsad Taluka, brought a suit to have the award dated July 9, 1929, passed between them and the defendants, the iuamdars of the village, filed in Court and a decree passed upon it under Schedule II, para 21, of the Code of Civil Procedure, A number of objections were taken by the defendants to the filing of the award, some of them of a very technical nature. Most of them were overruled by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nadiad, but he declined to file the award on two grounds. The first ground was that the award which was sought to be filed in Court was not the original award made by the arbitrators, but a second award which had been made after the first award had been passed, and that the arbitrators had no authority, after passing the first award, to review it or substitute a second award for it. The second ground...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1933)35BOMLR875
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a reference made to us by the Sessions Judge of Broach and Panch-Mahals for setting aside the conviction of one Akbarali Haji Mahmadalli who was convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Godhra, of an offence under Section 114 of the Indian Railways Act and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 20.2. One Kalimuddin Haji Mahmadalli, a brother of Akbaralli, was found travelling from Piplod to Godhra on June 26, 1932, with a monthly ticket No. 96. It has been found that the ticket had been issued to Akbaralli. The Ticket Collector at Godhra asked Kalimuddin to pay the fare from Piplod to Godhra and a penalty of Re. 1 on the ground that the monthly ticket which he produced was in his brother's name and could not be used by him. He failed to do so. On these facts both Kalimuddin and Akbaralli were prosecuted, Kalimuddin under Section 112 of the Indian Railways Act for travelling without a proper ticket, and Akbaralli under Section 114 for having parted with his monthly ticket t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1934Bom1; (1933)35BOMLR1091
W. Baker, Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. The plaintiffs, who are three in number, sue as representatives of the Parsi Anjuman of Chikhli. They sue to recover two houses which have been mortgaged by defendant No. 1 to defendant No. 4, and put very shortly, their case is that originally the father of defendant No. 1 and two other persons, who were the vahivatdars or managers of the old Agyari or fire-temple of Chikhli and were representatives of the Parsi Anjuman, purchased these two houses, which are on either side of the Agyari, for the Anjuman, but subsequently, defendant No. 1's father treated this property as his own and mortgaged it to various persons and ultimately to defendant No. 4 who is at present in possession. Defendants Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are brothers, The only contending defendants are defendants Nos. 1 and 4. Defendant No. 1 is the son of Kuverji Mancherji, who was one of the origi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1935)37BOMLR357
Tyabji, J.1. The suit out of which the present application arises was brought in the Small Cause Court at Sarat. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 200, alleged to have been paid to the defendant through the defendant's agent, who had come to Sarat for receiving payment there. The defendant is a resident of the Sachin State.2. Section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is applicable, refers to the place where the defendant at the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides.3. The main argument before me was that the Sarat Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The question of jurisdiction is not specifically dealt with by the trial Judge, I have therefore to decide whether the evidence and findings justify the decree. The question depends on whether any part of the cause of action arose at Sarat : Civil Procedure Code, Section 20 (c).4. The case of the plaintiff who is the respondent is that as he, the creditor, resided in Sarat, that the money was advanced there, that it f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1934)36BOMLR834
Kania, J.1. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover from the defendants a sum of Rs. 12,000 and odd on the ground that the defendants failed to deliver the goods which the plaintiff had contracted to purchase from them. He alleges that he paid the customs duty and clearing and other charges to the defendants on the basis that the goods of which the shipping documents were tendered to him were of the contract quality. After these charges were paid it was found by the plaintiff that the goods were not of the contract quality. The defendants contend, inter alia, that they were not personally liable to the plaintiff as they were acting only as agents for an Italian firm as mentioned in para. 1; of their points of defence. It appears that thereafter the defendants applied for the issue of a commission to examine certain witnesses to determine whether the defendants were only agents, or, in the alternative, that they were not liable to the plaintiff in the transactions as alleged in their p...
Tag this Judgment!