Mumbai Court November 1934 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.
Abdul Karim Vs. Aminabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom308; (1935)37BOMLR398; 157Ind.Cas.694
Tyabji, J.1. The plaintiff prays for a declaration that defendant No, 1 is his lawfully married wife, and that the marriage between them is subsisting ; for a decree against her to live with him as his wife, and to allow him all his conjugal rights and for an injunction restraining her from marrying defendant No. 3. The plaint also contains the allegation that defendants Nos. 2 and 3 entered into a conspiracy and enticed away defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 is the mother of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 3 is a stranger.2. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 do not appear. Ordinarily slight evidence of the allegations in the plaint would be accepted for giving the plaintiff a decree against the absent defendants. But the nature of this suit makes me cautious. It is by a husband who claims that he was 'married to a girl nine years old. The girl was thus not competent to give her consent to the marriage. The consent alleged to be given on her behalf is not by her father but by her paternal uncle. T...
Kondaji Bagaji Deokar Vs. Dagadu Gajaba Deokar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom259; (1935)37BOMLR225; 157Ind.Cas.592
Broomfield, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit brought by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who are brothers and members of a Hindu joint family, to set aside the alienation of family property made during their minority by their mother as their guardian. The trial Court found that there was legal necessity for the sale in part. It overruled an objection on the ground of limitation and set aside the sale on terms, that is to say, the plaintiffs were directed to pay a certain sum of money into Court. On appeal, the District Judge confirmed the lower Court's decree, though he decided the point of limitation in favour of the plaintiffs on different grounds from those which appealed to the trial Court. The present second appeal is brought by defendant No. 3 in the suit who is a transferee from the original alienee.2. The learned advocate who appears for him has contended in the first place that the lower Courts were wrong in setting aside the sale and that they ought to have held that the sale was...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Hargovandas Narottamdas Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom229; (1935)37BOMLR341
Rangnekar, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the respondents for a declaration that a certain plot of land, situate in the village of Kankanpur, in the Godhra taluka, belonged to plaintiff No. 1, plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 2.2. The plaint avers that 'Plaintiff No. 1 served defendant No. 1 with a notice on October 4, 1927, under Civil Procedure Code, Section 80 ' and no reply was received from defendant No. 1 even after the expiry of two months.3. Defendant No. 1 denied the title of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 to the plot and further contended that the notice, exhibit 13, was not proper and sufficient within the meaning of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.4. Both the Courts repelled the contentions of defendant No. 1.5. The Secretary of State for India in Council now appeals and raises the same questions.6. The first question is whether the notice purported to have been given under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was sufficient within the meanin...
Narayan Mahadeo Durve Vs. Moti Pannaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom225; (1935)37BOMLR215; 159Ind.Cas.492
Murphy, J.1. The plaintiffs sued the defendants on a promissory note for Rs. 4,500 executed on August 12, 1925. Execution was admitted, but agricultural status and lack of consideration was pleaded by the defendants. The learned Subordinate Judge held that consideration was proved, and gave the plaintiffs a decree for the amount claimed, and the appeal contests the correctness of this decision.2. The facts are really all admitted. Defendants' father and separated brother had executed two promissory notes, jointly, one in favour of plaintiffs' firm and the other in that of a second firm named Chimanlal. The creditors sued on the notes in the High Court and ultimately got decrees for Rs. 7,143 and Rs. 2,380 respectively. Defendants' father had died pendente lite : defendants had been made parties as his legal representatives ; and had pleaded they were agriculturists and that the High Court had no jurisdiction ; and the two suits against them had been withdrawn with leave to bring fresh ...
Emperor Vs. Digambar Kashinath Bhavarthi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR99
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision in which the applicant asks us to review the order of the Sessions Judge of Sholapur refusing to order the withdrawal of a warrant issued under Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, The relevant facts are that in the year 1930 the present applicant was convicted of certain offences, and he was sentenced to substantive terms of imprisonment, and also to fines amounting to Rs. 1,500, with a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine. Whilst he was still in prison, i.e., in January, 1932, a warrant was issued for the recovery of the fine under Section 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and was sent to the Collector for execution under Sub-section (1), Clause (b). As a result of the issue of that warrant a part of the fine amounting to some Rs. 600 has been recovered, and the warrant has been sent for execution under Sub-section (3) of Section 386 to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Akalkot, where it is so...
Vagha Jesing Vs. Manilal Bhogilal Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom262; (1935)37BOMLR249
Broomfield, J.1. This is a group of appeals and one revision application arising in suits brought by some of the Desai inamdars of the village of Vinzol in the Panch Mahals to recover rent from their tenants for the year 1925-26 at the rate of Re. 1-1-0 per bigha according to the number of bighas in their holdings as ascertained at a survey made in 1923. The trial Court decreed all the suits. On appeal the District Judge held that the claim for the rent of 1925-26 was barred by limitation, but he gave a declaration of the plaintiffs' right to recover at the rate claimed by them. The tenants have presented these appeals.2. The inam of Vinzol is jointly owned by a number of sharers who manage the village by turns, the rents recovered from the tenants being divided among all the co-sharers. The arrangement which was in force for a long time prior to 1923 was that the tenants paid a lump sum by way of rent based approximately on the number of bighas in their holdings as roughly estimated w...
Goolbai Motabhai Shroff Vs. Pestonji Cowasji Bhandari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom333; (1935)37BOMLR410; 159Ind.Cas.363
B.J. Wadia J.1. The plaintiffs are the Widow, sons and daughters respectively of one Motabhai Nanabhai Shroff who died of the injuries received by him in a motor accident on June 8, 1932, in Balaram Street, Bombay, and have brought this suit as the representatives of the deceased under the Fatal Accidents Act, XIII of 1855, to recover the sum of Rs. 15,000 as damages from the defendant who they allege was at all material times the owner of an Essex car bearing No. X-4939. Plaintiffs say that the defendant plied the said car for hire in Bombay for taking persons working in local mills to the mills every morning and bringing them back home every evening, and that for such purpose the defendant had employed one Kaikhushru Jam-shedji. On the morning of June 7, 1932, at about 6-45 a.m. the car was being driven by Kaikhushru, and one Nariman Cowasji Mistry was seated by his side. Nariman had at the time only a temporary license to drive motor cars. The car started from Tardeo. Kaikhushru and...
Dhondu Ekoba Wani Vs. Damodar Shridhar Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom191; (1935)37BOMLR209
Broomfield, J.1. These are second appeals arising from suits brought by the respondents, who are jahagirdars and watandars. of the village Gondgaon in East Khandesh, to evict the tenants from certain lands in the village. The earlier suit No. 469 of 1927 relates to S. Nos. 17 and 52 and is the subject of second appeal No. 991 of 1930. The other suit No. 648 of 1927 relates to S. No. 49 and is the subject of second appeal No. 989 of 1930. The tenants denied plaintiffs' right to recover possession of the lands on two grounds : (1) that plaintiffs are merely grantees of the assessment and not owners of the soil, (2) that the tenancy is a permanent one. In the first suit the trial Court found on both points in favour of the defendants. In the second the finding; on both was in favour of the plaintiffs. On appeal the District Judge held in both cases that the plaintiffs are owners of the soil and that the alleged permanent tenancy is not proved. Hence both suits have been decreed.2. In thes...
Purshottam Dattatraya Shetye Vs. Yeshvadabai Jayadeo Shetye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom216; (1935)34BOMLR203
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for revision of an order of remand made by the District Judge of Ratnagiri on appeal from the Subordinate Judge of Malvan in certain execution proceedings. There had been a suit in which the opponent obtained a decree for possession of certain land, survey No, 11. pot No. 4, against the present applicant and his brother. When the decree was sought to be executed, it was found that there was a shed on the land which had been constructed by the judgment-debtors. On behalf of the decree-holder it was alleged that the shed had been erected since the decree. A Commissioner was appointed to draw a map and to ascertain the age of the building. He submitted a report to the effect that the building was ten or eleven years old. The Subordinate Judge then disposed of the darkhast by directing that the decree-holder was to be given possession of the land with the exception of the shed and the land beneath it. He also directed that the judgment-debtors were t...
Rama Kallappa Pujari Vs. Saidappa Sidrama Pujari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom306; (1935)37BOMLR336; 157Ind.Cas.634
John Beaumont Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the Assistant Judge at Belgaum, and it raises a short point of law. The plaintiff filed1 a suit for partition, and on January 22, 1920, got a decree for possession of a third of the property. Ultimately the property was divided by metes and bounds, and in 1928 the plaintiff got possession of his one-third of the property. The plaint contained no claim for mesne profits, past or future, and the-decree in the suit said nothing about mesne profits. This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovering the mesne profits in respect of his third part of the joint property accrued between the date of the decree in 1920, and the date, in 1928, when the plaintiff got possession of his share of the property, and a preliminary issue was raised as to whether the suit lay, or whether it was barred under the provisions of order II, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code. The learned Subordinate-Judge in a careful judgment came to the conclusi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »