Mumbai Court August 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.
Popat Virji Vs. Damodar Jairam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR844
Kania, J.1. This is a suit on a foreign judgment.2. Several years ago one Damodar Jairam started doing business at Zanzibar. On his death his son Keshavji carried on the business in the same name. When Keshavji died in 1901, he left behind him that business at Zanzibar and several immoveable properties at Zanzibar, Bombay and Cutch. His widow Zaverbai obtained letters of administration at Zanzibar and at Bombay in 1903, and continued the business at Zanzibar. Keshavji left no issue.3. Zaverbai resided ordinarily in Bombay and carried on the business at Zanzibar through managers whom she gave powers-of-attorney. In 1912, her brother Mulji Mathuradas was appointed the manager of the business and held a general power-of-attorney from her. In 1918, Mulji, on behalf of the firm of Damodar Jairam, entered into different partnerships with the plaintiff, Jumma Cassum and others. The business done by the firm of Damodar Jairam and the plaintiff in partnership was also done in the name of Damoda...
Emperor Vs. Appa Rama Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom16; (1933)35BOMLR1065; 147Ind.Cas.1003
Broomfield, J.1. The applicant in this case one Appa Rama Mali, has been convicted by the First Class Magistrate, Malshiras, under Section 43(1)(a) and (h) of the Abkari Act, V of 1878, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four months and a fine of Rs. 50. The conviction and sentence have been confirmed in appeal by the Sessions Judge of Sholapur.2. The facts found by the lower Courts, which, according to our usual practice, we shall assume to be correct for the purposes of this revision application, are briefly these. The accused lives jointly with his two brothers in a vasti, that is a clump of huts, in the neighbourhood of the village of Borgaon. There are three huts. The middle one is occupied by the accused with his family, the two adjoining huts by his two brothers and their families. At the back of the huts there are some fields jointly cultivated by the brothers in which various crops are grown. For about two years past the Excise Inspector of the Pandharpur Range, who is...
Madhgouda Babaji Patil Vs. Halappa Balappa Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom178; (1934)36BOMLR327
Shingne, J.1. The facts in this case are : Defendant on June 8, 1924, executed four bonds and a yadi of the total sum of Rs. 700 in favour of plaintiff's father, who died sometime thereafter, leaving three sons. Plaintiff is the eldest of them and the two others were then minors and were also minors at the date of the suit. It is not known if they have attained majority since then. It is stated that the bonds prescribed a time of one year for re-payment. The suit was filed on June 5, 1928, by the plaintiff alone. In the plaint, the plaintiff was named individually and the plaint stated in paragraph 7 that the original creditor-meaning thereby the plaintiff's father-being dead, plaintiff was his son and heir. The defendant objected to the plaint on the ground of non-joinder of the other brothers of the plaintiff, and alleged that the three constituted an undivided Hindu family, and that, as a consequence, the suit, as framed, was not maintainable. Thereupon, the plaintiff filed an appli...
Basvant Gowdappa Patil Vs. Abasalli Gajabarsaheb Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom115; (1934)36BOMLR158
Baker, J.1. This appeal raises a question as to watan law. The facts are simple. The plaintiff is a purchaser from a lady who claims to be the heir of one Kadir Khan, her brother who was the holder of watan property. Defendant No. 2, who is the father of defendant No. 1, had obtained a decree against defendants Nos. 4 to 9, who are the members of the watan family, and at the auction held in execution of this decree his son, defendant No. 1, purchased the property. The plaintiff, who was a previous purchaser from Shahabia, the sister of Kadir Khan, objected, but his objection was overruled, and he brought the present suit for a declaration that the auction-sale was void as against him.2. The question that arose was whether by reason of Act V of 1886, Section 2, the plaintiff's vendor Shahabia, being a female, was not postponed to the males in the family, the property being watan property. It was held by the first Court that this was so, and therefore, the plaintiff must be non-suited. O...
Vithaldas Bhagvandas Durbar Vs. Shrinivasrao Nageshrao Nadgouda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom116; (1934)36BOMLR169
Baker, J.1. The facts of these appeals are simple, but they raise a point of law on which there is some difference between the decisions of this Court. The question is whether a money decree against a watandar can be executed against the watan property in the hands of his sons. The learned Counsel for the appellants has referred to the set of decisions ending with Narayan v. Ramrao (1901) 3 Bom. L.R. 482 in which it was held that watan property after the death of the watandar was not assets of his estate, from which it would appear that the heir does not succeed to the watan property through his predecessor. The earlier decision of Hanmantrav Khanderav v. Bhavanrav Bajirav (1873) 10 B.H.C.R. 299 is prior to the introduction of the Watan Act and is based on Bombay Regulation XVI of 1827. But Jagjivandas Javerdas v. Imdad Ali I.L.R. (1882) Bom. 211 which lays down that as the deceased mortgagor had only a life interest the watan came into the hands of his son free of the mortgage, and Na...
Vishnu Bapu Shinde Vs. Lakshmi Sakharam Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1933
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR193
Shingne, J.1. The following pedigree will be useful to appreciate the facts of this case :-Bhavani---------------------------------------------------------| | |Bapu = Dhondai Sakharam = Laxmi Tukaram.| present plaintiff. Bapu's illegitimate son Tukaram. Dhondai adopted defendant No. 1.2. Tukaram died some time prior to 1901. Bapu died in March, 1901, Bhavani in December, 1901. Sakharam was the last to die. He died in 1904. Bapu had an illegitimate son by name Tukaram. In 1915 Dhondai adopted the present defendant No. 1.3. The land in suit was purchased in 1900. The sale-deed is in the name of Bapu. It has been found that out of the land in the sale-deed, land measuring one acre was given to Tukaram, the illegitimate son of Bapu, and the finding is that the rest of the land in the sale-deed was given to Dhondai for her maintenance.4. The plaintiff brought this suit to obtain possession of the land in the sale-deed alleging that the land belonged to the joint family of Bhavani and his so...
Emperor Vs. Chhaganlal Ishwardas Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR1025
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the petitioner was summoned to serve as an assessor in a sessions case in the Nadiad Sessions Court and he appeared in a dress consisting of a paheran, a cap, and a scarf. The learned Sessions Judge thought that he was improperly dressed and fined him Rs. 3.2. In the reasons which the learned Sessions Judge gives for his order he says that an assessor ought to wear a coat, and that anybody not wearing a coat is improperly dressed. Well, that is rather a matter of taste. We have been shown what we are told is a paheran. My own opinion is that it looks better without a coat, than with one. But what we have to consider is not a question of taste, but whether the learned Sessions Judge had any jurisdiction to fine the assessor. There are no rules as to the dress to be worn by assessors, and this particular assessor stated to the Court that the dress he was wearing Was his best dress and the one in which he had appeared seven or eight times before as ...
Umar HussaIn Kaji Vs. Sakharam Vishnu Palsule
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR1154
Baker, J.1. Although the facts of this appeal are rather complicated, as is usual in cases coming from Ratnagiri, the point for decision lies within a narrow compass, and is also covered by authority. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the property which had fallen to him on partition. Prior to the partition his co-sharers had mortgaged the property at different times to two persons Ghate and Shejwalkar, whose interests are represented by the defendants. It has been found by both the Courts that the fact of these mortgages was concealed by the mortgagors co-sharers from the plaintiff, who was no party to the mortgages, and that the defendant is not aware of the partition. In this state of affairs the plaintiff sued to recover possession of the land in dispute, which is Survey No. 23, pot No. 1. The defendants, who were in possession, opposed this claim.2. The first Court, the Subordinate Judge of Rajapur, dismissed the suit, but on appeal by the plaintiff the District Judge aw...
Krishnaji Shrinivas Jalvadi Vs. Madhusa Appansa Ladaba (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom207; (1934)36BOMLR451
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This case has been referred to us by Mr. Justice Tyabji in order to determine what the effect was of an order made by Mr. Justice Barlee on the hearing of an appeal under Rule 11 of Order XLI, Civil Procedure Code. The appeal related to two survey numbers and Mr. Justice Barlee's order was that notice should issue as to one of the survey numbers ; but he said nothing about the other survey number.2. Mr. Murdeshwar for the appellants contends that it is not open to the Court on hearing an appeal under Rule 11 of Order XLI to deal with the appeal piece-meal. He says that it must either be admitted or dismissed. We have inquired as to the practice which exists in this Court and we understand that it has been the practice in hearing appeals, under Rule 11 of Order XLI, Civil Procedure Code, at times to admit an appeal in part only, and at times to restrict the grounds on which an appeal is admitted, but the legality of the practice has not been considered. We are...
Emperor Vs. Shankarshet Ramshet Uravane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR1040; 147Ind.Cas.25
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are applications in revision in which the two accused ask us to interfere with their conviction under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, that is to say, for concealing evidence of an offence. The ground on which the accused ask us to interfere is that, as they say, the only evidence against them is that of an accomplice, and that there is no sufficient corroboration of that evidence such as the Court normally requires. At the outset the learned Government Pleader referred us to the case of Emperor v. Lallubhai (1909) Bom. L.R. 858 in which it was laid down that a conviction will not be disturbed by the High Court under its revisional jurisdiction on the mere ground that the rule of practice which requires that the evidence of an accomplice should be corroborated has not been adhered to by the Court which has convicted unless there are exceptional circumstances calling for the exercise of that jurisdiction in the interests of justice. The Criminal Pro...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »