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.
Keshavlal Tribhovan Doshi Vs. Maganlal Shivram Adhyaru
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom134; (1934)36BOMLR197
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Nadiad, the appellant being the original defendant No. 9, and the point which arises is as to whether defendant No. 9 as a mortgagee of leasehold property is liable for the rent under the lease.2. The facts are that the lease in question was granted on May 24, 1920, to defendants Nos. 1 to 6 and the father of defendants Nos. 7 and 8, the term being thirty years and the rent Rs. 324 odd. In 1925 defendants Nos. 1 to 6 sold their interest to the father of defendants Nos. 7 and 8, and on January 8, 1926, the father of defendants Nos. 7 and 8 mortgaged the property to defendant No. 9. That mortgage is Exh. 32. It contains an agreement for payment of the mortgage money on demand. Then it recites that the land in question is in the absolute ownership and enjoyment of the mortgagor and the operative words are : 'Having given up our said possession and enjoyment thereof, we having passed the same in w...
Krishnaji Shrinivas Jalvadi Vs. Madhusa Appansa Ladaba (No. 1)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1933
Reported in: (1934)36BOMLR445
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the possession of survey Nos. 55 and 57. The argument has taken some time as it depends upon the question whether there is any evidence for the findings of the lower Courts. But the facts are not many, and may be shortly stated.2. There is, first, a preliminary point, that, with regard to survey No. 57, there has been no notice issued by this Court of an appeal having been admitted, and the question has been raised before me whether an appeal can be admitted only as to part of the contentions of the parties. I shall deal with this matter after I deal with survey No. 55 which depends on the merits of the case.3. The last undisputed owner of survey No. 55 was one Shankarsa. He died in 1915. It is not disputed that on November 3, 1909, Shankarsa made a gift of the property to his maternal nephew Madhusa (who is defendant No. 1 in the suit), and that Madhusa sold it on August 27, 1915, to the plaintiffs' father, who died in 1918. The questi...
Ebrahim Alibhai Akuji Vs. Bai Asi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom21; (1933)35BOMLR1148
Tyabji, J.1. The question in this appeal refers to the effect of a gift purported to be made by one Abraham Wajir Mahomed. He died leaving a widow, Ashi (defendant No. 1), and two daughters, Hurt and Mulak. Prior to 1896, the deceased had purported to make a gift of several lands to his daughters. He called the tenants at the time, and directed them to pay the rents to the two daughters, which they did. Subsequently, on March 7, 1896, he executed two deeds, Exhibits 225 and 226.2. The gift has been contested in this Court on the ground that it is invalid in its inception because of the doctrine of musha', and that in any case there has been no such special possession or transfer as, it is alleged, the law requires when a gift is made jointly to two donees.3. Reliance is placed in the first instance upon Musammat Bibi Bilkis v. Sheikh Wahid Ali I.L.R. (1927) Pat. 118 That case is entirely different. There the donor, Turab Ali, purported to make a gift in favour of his two sons, and two ...
Dinbai Hormasji Mirapurwala Vs. Bamansha Jamasji Shet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom296; (1934)36BOMLR608; 152Ind.Cas.168
Baker, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge with appellate powers at Broach dismissing the appellant's appeal against an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Ankleshvar under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code. The facts are that a creditor obtained a decree against the estate of one Hormasji Ardeshir Mirapurwala represented by his wife Bai Dinbai, who had taken out letters of administration to the estate, and also against some other heirs of the deceased Hormasji, and in execution of that decree, the judgment-creditor sought to attach an insurance policy on the life of Hormasji. The widow contended that that policy did not form part of her husband's estate but was her own property. The objection was considered by the Subordinate Judge, who found that the insurance money was part of the estate of the deceased Hormasji, and, therefore, ordered execution to proceed. The widow appealed, but in appeal the order of the lower Court was affirmed, and ...
Chamanlal Chakubhai Vs. Bai Parvati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom151; (1934)36BOMLR152; 150Ind.Cas.854
Tyabji, J.1. The question in this appeal is what rule governs (under the Mayukha) the power of disposition over moveable property acquired by a Hindu widow in partition with her sons.The arguments before me had reference mainly to the decision in Debi Mangal Prasad Singh v. Mahadeo Prasad Singh 2. Their Lordships were also concerned with property received by a widow in partition. They had to consider what rule should be adopted in regard to the line of descent with respect to immoveable property : not, as I have to do, what rule should be applied in regard to the power of disposal in respect of moveable property. The question before me differs in two respects. I have to consider the rule applicable to powers of disposal, not the rule of inheritance; and I am concerned with move-able, not with immoveable property.3. There is no rule in the texts directly applicable to the inheritance of immoveable property acquired by a widow in partition. For, although the Mitakshara contains a rule of...
Emperor Vs. Lakshman Shivram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1933Bom461; (1933)35BOMLR1018
John Beaumont, C.J.1. In this case the accused was charged under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code: he was convicted under Section 366 and acquitted under Section 376. The learned Judge directed that the accused be kept in rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years and that the execution of the sentence be carried out in the Borstal Institution at Dharwar. The learned Advocate General has given a certificate under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent alleging that there is an error of law in the sentence.2. Section 6 of the Borstal Schools Act provides that when an offender is found guilty of an offence for which he is liable to be sentenced to transportation or imprisonment and certain conditions are satisfied, it shall be lawful for the Court to pass in lieu of a sentence of transportation or imprisonment an order that the offender be detained in the Borstal school for a certain term. This Court pointed out in the case of Emperor v. Mathurdas Purshottam (1931) 34 Bom. L.R. ...
J. Hogan Vs. Gafur Ramzan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom28; (1933)35BOMLR1142
Baker, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of compensation made by the Ex-Officio Commissioner at Thana under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and involves a point of limitation. The claimant, who was a labourer employed by the opponent at his sand and brick works at Mumbra, met with an accident on September 24, 1929, which resulted in the loss of his leg. The claim was made in September 1931, but it is in evidence that after the loss of his leg the claimant was employed by the opponent as a watchman up to about April or May 1930, when he was dismissed. Under Section 10 of the Act, the claim for compensation should have been instituted within six months of the occurrence of the accident, i.e., by March 24, 1930, though the Commissioner has power to excuse the delay for sufficient cause. The delay of sis months is satisfactorily explained by the claimant's employment on light duties on the same pay, but the Commissioner held that there was no explanation of the delay in making the cl...
Vishram Surba Savant Vs. Amrat Dhaku Savant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1933
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR559
Tyabji J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for an account under Section 15D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act (to which I will refer as the Act). The suit has reference to a sixteen pies share in certain property. The defendants in their written statement alleged that two pies out of the sixteen pies had been sold at auction and purchased by the defendants' predecessors-in-title.2. The plaintiff in his evidence denied that the said two pies had been sold to the defendants.3. The learned District Judge dismissed the suit holding that it was not maintainable under Section 15D of the Act.4. Under Section 15D any agriculturist whose property is mortgaged may sue for an account. The plaintiff is an agriculturist. No dispute arises on that head. The decision under appeal is however supported before me on the ground that the Court cannot in this suit proceed on the basis that the plaintiff's property is mortgaged, unless some preliminary questions are determined, or perhaps unless t...
The Collector of Bombay Vs. Kamalavahooji Maharaj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom162; (1934)36BOMLR297
Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Collector of Bombay from the decision of the Bombay Revenue Judge. The plaintiff filed a suit praying for a declaration that there is a right on the part of the plaintiff in limitation of the right of Government to possess and hold her land mentioned in the plaint free from assessment for land revenue, or in the alternative, that it may be declared that the said land is liable to be assessed as of pension and tax or quit and ground tenure. The plaintiff is the present spiritual head of a Hindu Vaishnava temple situate at Cutch-Mandvi and as such is the owner of a piece of land situate at Bora Bazaar Street within the Fort, which is the piece of land in question in suit. So far as the title is concerned, the earliest title deed is dated 1788 and is a conveyance to two persons; then the property seems to have descended to the daughter of one of those persons, who in 1828 devised the land to her spiritual guru and the plaintiff claims under t...
Phattechand Anandram Vs. Uma Valoo and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom24
Baker, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court at Nasik. The facts are a little unusual. The defendants in 1919 passed a sale deed for Rs. 5,000 to the plaintiff, and this deed was registered through Court on 20th August 1923. The plaintiff sued on this sale deed in suit No. 345 of 1923, but the defendants contended that the document was not intended as a sale deed, but that it was to be accompanied by an agreement to reconvey by the plaintiff and both these documents were to be registered together, but the plaintiff failed to execute the agreement to reconvey, and therefore the whole transaction was incomplete and void. The First Class Subordinate Judge at Nasik held that the suit lands were only given as security to the plaintiff for the amount of the sale deed, and that the sale deed was to take effect only on his passing to the defendants a writing embodying the agreement to reconvey, and the above condition not having been fulfilled the sa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›