Mumbai Court July 1933 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Akbarali Karimbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-28-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom479; (1933)35BOMLR1021
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. [His Lordship after discussing the evidence proceeded:] Then the nest evidence to which I would refer is the dying declarations. The declarations made to the doctor, to the Sub-Inspector of Police and to the Deputy Superintendent of Police were unquestionably made. Whether earlier declarations were made to people who came to the assistance of the deceased is perhaps more doubtful. The defence theory is that, although these declarations; were made, they were the result of a deliberate plot concocted by the deceased and his friends between the time of the assault and the time of the arrival of Dr. Taherali, that is to say, in about half an hour. The view of the defence is that probably the attack was made by some robber who got away and that the deceased having then his relations and friends round him decided to make the best of a bad job and to make a false charge of assault against his enemies. Why on that theory he should have included accused No. 4, who is ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ras Behari Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR1087
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave. The appellants were tried by the Sessions Judge of Patna, sitting with a jury of seven. They were found guilty by a majority verdict of six to one on charges of murder and rioting. Appellants Nos. 1-7 were sentenced to death and No. 8 to transportation for life. They appealed to the High Court, but their appeal was dismissed, The sentences on appellants Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 7 were subsequently commuted by the Local Government to transportation for life.2. On their application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council it was asserted that one of the seven jurors did not understand English, the language in which some of the evidence appears to have been given, and in which the addresses of counsel were made and the charge of the Sessions Judge was delivered. This contention had been put forward on their behalf in their appeal to the High Court. It was originally supported by an affidavit upon which the learned Judges of that Court properly ...
Tag this Judgment!Khumaji Gajaji and Co. Vs. Damaji Korsey
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom39; (1933)35BOMLR1197
Rangnekar, J.1. The question in this suit is whether a person who has executed a promissory note personally can be permitted to show by oral evidence that he signed it merely as a surety for another person. The suit is brought on three promissory notes executed by the two defendants personally. Defendant No. 1 does not appear, but has put in a written statement admitting the notes but questioning the amount. Defendant No. 2 pleads that he executed the promissory notes merely as a surety for defendant No. 1, and that by reason of certain compromise arrived at between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 he is discharged from his liability under Section 135 of the Contract Act.2. When the issues were raised it struck me that it was not open to defendant No. 2 to lead oral evidence to prove that he was a surety when on the face of the promissory notes he appeared to be a joint debtor. The learned counsel appearing in the case were not prepared to argue out the point, Mr. M.S. Vakil for defe...
Tag this Judgment!Vithal Laxman Mutalik Vs. Yamutai Shridhar Tamboli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom121; (1934)36BOMLR144; 150Ind.Cas.847
Baker, J.1. This appeal raises an important question of law. Plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 5,000 odd in the following circumstances. Plaintiff is the granddaughter of Laxmanrao Mutalik, whose widow Gangabai adopted the defendant on April 22, 1911. On the same day that the adoption deed was executed, the defendant passed an agreement to Gangabai that out of the estate of the adoptive father he would pay Rs. 5,000 to the plaintiff, Gangabai's daughter's daughter. The defendant was a major at the date of the agreement. The plaintiff was a minor at that date, and the agreement was that the money was to be paid on her attaining majority. The plaintiff, therefore, sued to recover it, and the First Class Subordinate Judge of Satara has awarded her claim. Defendant appeals.2. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that defendant constituted himself a trustee for the payment to plaintiff. Under the same agreement and by the same clause of the agreement, which is Exh. 18, p. 27, at p. 30, the de...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Tatya Khurd Vs. Matha Bala Jasud
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-19-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom36; (1933)35BOMLR1131
Shingne, J.1. The facts of this case are that the suit property originally belonged to one Vitha. She had acquired the property while she was in the keeping of one Khandu during the lifetime of her husband whom she had left. While living in this condition she had a son named Ganu born to her and two daughters. One of the daughters is dead, and plaintiff No. 1 in this case is the other daughter. On the death of Vitha, Ganu took possession of her property and continued to be in possession of the same until death. After his death, Chandra, his widow, took possession of the property. While Ganu's widow was in possession of the property, the present plaintiff No. 1 passed a sale-deed of the property to one Vithu Todkar, who filed a suit in 1914 (Suit No. 577 of 1914) against Ganu's widow and some other persons for recovery of possession of the property. Vithu Todkar failed in the litigation. It was held that his vendor Matha was an off spring of adulterous intercourse and could not be said ...
Tag this Judgment!Chhaganlal Uderam Gour Vs. Sobharam Harishankar Gour
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom26; (1933)35BOMLR1119
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a second appeal arising out of a suit brought by the respondent No. 1, Sobharam Harishankar Gour, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Andheri, for a declaration that he was the owner of a one-third share in the income derived from two temples of Vithoba and Lakshminarayan at Malode in the Bassein taluka of the Thana District, for an injunction against defendants Nos. 1 and 5, the present appellants, permanently restraining them from obstructing the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the suit property according to his turn, and for awarding him a certain amount for the loss sustained by him through his having been deprived of his turn by the appellants. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that it fell within the purview of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and that the consent of the Advocate General had not been obtained as required under that section. The lower appellate Court allowed the plaintiff's claim holding that Section 92 of the C...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Raghunath Deshpande Vs. Rajaram Laxman Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom32; (1933)35BOMLR1123
Shingne, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit for accounts under Section 15D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The plaintiff is a member of a family which is shown in the pedigree given in the judgment of the trial Court. The suit is in connection with two mortgages executed by one Govind Sadashiv shown in the pedigree. The way in which the various defendants to the suit are connected has been clearly stated by the trial Court. It is sufficient to state that defendants Nos. 14 to 17 are apparently interested in the property along with the plaintiff. Prior to the institution of this suit, defendants Nos. 16 and 17 had filed suit No. 939 of 1924. On knowing of the institution of the suit, plaintiff applied to the Court to add him as a party to the suit, but his application was rejected. Plaintiff thereupon brought the present suit, impleading all necessary and proper parties. The two suits were consolidated by order of the trial Court which negatived the protest of defendants No...
Tag this Judgment!W.J. Edwards Vs. Bhaga Devaji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom31; (1933)35BOMLR1112
W. Baker, Acting C.J.1. This is an application filed by the Government Pleader on behalf of Staff Sergeant Edwards against an order of the Court of Small Causes at Poona attaching his pay in execution of a decree obtained against him by the opponents. It is not necessary for us to deal with this matter at any length because there are two rulings of this Court, viz., Duckworth v. Duckworth I.L.R. (1918) Bom. 368 21 Bom. L.R. 137 and Brown v. Hanson (1932) 35 Bom. L.R. 360 both of which are directly on the point before us. It was held in Brown v. Hanson, in which the previous cases were considered, that the pay of a First Class Warrant Officer to whom the Army Act applies is not attachable under a decree of a civil Court to the extent contained under Section 60(1)(i) of the Civil Procedure Code. This case does not seem to have been brought to the notice of the Judge of the Small Cause Court at Poona. Following the case of Brown v. Hanson we must hold that the pay of Staff Sergeant Edward...
Tag this Judgment!Sugrabai and ors. Vs. Mahomedalli Ahmedalli and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1933
Reported in: AIR1935Bom34
Kania, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit claiming to be beneficiaries under a trust-deed dated 2nd December 1915. Defendant 1 is the father of plaintiffs 1 and 3 while defendant 2 is the father of plaintiff 2. Plaintiff 2 is the husband of plaintiff 1. The trust-deed (Ex. B) appears to have been made shortly after the marriage of plaintiff 1 with plaintiff 2 and was intended to be for the benefit of the children of defendant 1 and his son-in-law. In the plaint it is alleged that after the trust-deed was executed and accepted by defendants 1 and 2, as shown by the endorsement at the foot of the trust-deed, defendant 1 constituted himself the managing trustee, collected the rents and profits of the property and utilised the same in accordance with the terms and provisions of the trust-deed. The plaintiffs say that only for about two years prior to the filing of the suit no payments were made to them in accordance with the provisions contained in the trust-deed and they had therefo...
Tag this Judgment!Sugrabai Vs. Mahomedalli Ahmedalli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR1151
Kania, J.1. The plaintiffs have filed this suit claiming to be beneficiaries under a trust-deed dated December 2, 1915. Defendant No. 1 is the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 3 while defendant No. 2 is the father of plaintiff No. 2. Plaintiff No. 2 is the husband of plaintiff No. 1. The trust-deed (exhibit B) appears to have been made shortly after the marriage of plaintiff No. 1 with plaintiff No. 2 and was intended to be for the benefit of the children of defendant No. 1 and his sons-in-law. In the plaint it is alleged that after the trust-deed was executed and accepted by defendants Nos. 1 and 2, as shown by the endorsement at the foot of the trust-deed, defendant No. 1 constituted himself the managing trustee, collected the rents and profits of the property and utilised the same in accordance with the terms and provisions of the trust-deed. The plaintiffs say that only for about two years prior to the filing of the suit no payments were made to them in accordance with the provision...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »