Mumbai Court September 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.
Bhagirthibai Patloo Chavan Vs. Appa Dada Shinde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom110; (1934)36BOMLR185
Baker, J.1. This appeal raises a difficult point of law. There is not, much dispute as to the facts. The plaintiff, alleging himself to be the adopted son of one Dada Tukaram Shinde, sued for a declaration that he was the owner of the suit property and for possession of it. The First Class Subordinate Judge of Satara awarded the plaintiff's claim. The defendants appeal.2. The plaintiff alleges that he is the adopted son of deceased Dada Tukaram Shinde, being adopted by his widow Savitri on June 10, 1901. Defendant No. 1 Lakshmi is the mother of Dada. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are her daughters. Defendant No. 4 is a son adopted by Lakshmi the widow of Tukaram after the death of Savitri. Defendant No. 5 Ganu is an illegitimate son of Tukaram. Defendants Nos. 6 and 7 are persons in possession. The adoption was denied, but in appeal the learned advocate for the appellants admits that he cannot dispute the factum of the adoption, which is supported by an adoption deed Exh. 55, p. 47, register...
Vishvanath Gangadhar Deshpande Vs. Keshavbhat Govindbhat Kamat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom119; (1934)36BOMLR181
Baker, J.1. The facts of this appeal are simple, but they involve a point of law which does not seem to have been decided by this Court, though the question involved is one which must arise not infrequently. The respondent obtained a money decree against one Gangadhar and his three minor sons. Gangadhar died after the decree, and the decree-holder attempted to execute it against the property of the family, which was watan. The minors, who were represented by different guardians, put in an application objecting that the property being watan could not be attached and sold. The first Court directed execution to proceed, holding that there had already been an order directing the defendant to produce a certificate from the Collector under Section 10 of the Watan Act, and the certificate not having been produced, execution had been ordered to proceed. So the application was rejected without going into the merits.2. On appeal, the Extra Assistant Judge of Belgaum held that the property was li...
Harkisandas Bhagwandas Vs. Bai Dhanoo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-08-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom171; (1934)36BOMLR290
Shingne, J.1. On November 1, 1898, Ranchod, the father of plaintiff No. 2, sold the house in suit to one Bai Jivi for Rs. 899 under a registered deed. On the same day Bai Jivi executed an agreement in writing in favour of Ranchod, agreeing that she or her heirs would reconvey the house to Ranchod or his heirs on repayment of the sum of Rs. 899 with interest at eight annas per cent, per mensem. The agreement was not registered. Ranchod died leaving a son, who is plaintiff No. 2 in this case. Bai Jivi died leaving a daughter by name Bai Mani, who was the original defendant in this suit but died pending this suit. Her daughter Bai Dhanoo was, therefore, brought on record as her heir or legal representative. In October, 1918, plaintiff No. 2 assigned by a deed his right in the house to plaintiff No. 1. Prior to the assignment, plaintiff No. 2 had given to Bai Mani a notice (Exh. 42) asking the latter to make up the account in respect of the transaction and to reconvey the house on taking t...
Emperor Vs. Durgadas Radhakisan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1933
Reported in: (1933)35BOMLR1181
Divatia, J.1. These are two applications in revision preferred by accused Nos. 2 and 4, and Nos. 1 and 3, respectively, against the order of the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad setting aside the order of discharge of these accused by the Additional City Magistrate of Ahmedabad, and ordering that the accused should be tried again by another First Class Magistrate to whom the case may be transferred by the District Magistrate.2. The prosecution case against the four accused in substance is that these accused have committed an offence of cheating a number of people in Gujarat and in the Baroda State, inasmuch as they, in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, made misrepresentations to people by which ignorant and illiterate people were induced to go in for loans for very large amounts which the accused could not have paid. Out of the four accused in this case, No. 1, Durgadas, is the promoter of the scheme which is known as 'The Delhi Syndicate Ltd.' Accused No. 2 is the ch of agent for Gujarat...
Durgadas Radhakisan and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom48; 148Ind.Cas.271
Divatia, J.1. These are two applications in revision preferred by accused Nos. 2 and 4 and Nos. 1 and 3, respectively, against the order of the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad setting aside the order of discharge of these accused by the Additional City Magistrate of Ahmedabad, and ordering that the accused should be tried again by another First Class Magistrate to whom the case may be transferred by the District Magistrate.2. The prosecution case against the four accused in substance is that these accused have committed ( an offence of cheating a number of people in Gujrat and in the Baroda State, inasmuch as they, in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme, made misrepresentations to people by which ignorant and Illiterate people were induced to go in for loans for very large amounts which the accused could not have paid. Out of the four accused in this case, No. 1, Durgadas, is the promoter of the scheme which is known as 'The Delhi Syndicate Ltd.' Accused No. 2 is the chief agent for Gujrat,...
Jessie Grant Khambatta Vs. Mancherji Cursetji Khambatta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1933
Reported in: AIR1934Bom93; (1934)36BOMLR11
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the wife-petitioner is suing for a divorce, and the husband-respondent has taken the preliminary point that at the date of the marriage, which was April 24, 1923, the petitioner was already married, so that the marriage in suit was a nullity, and cannot be dissolved. I agreed to try as preliminary issue the question whether the first marriage of the petitioner was legally dissolved before the marriage in suit took place.2. The relevant facts have been admitted for the purpose of the preliminary issue, and are as follows:On December 4, 1906, the petitioner, who was a Scotch National, married one Gulam Ibrahim by civil marriage in Scotland according to the requirements of Scotch law. At the time of the marriage the husband was a Muhammadan domiciled in British India, and the wife was a Christian domiciled in Scotland. In the year 1912 the wife embraced the Muhammadan faith, both husband and wife being at that time domiciled in British India, and sh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›