Mumbai Court December 1934 Judgments
Shankarji Samalji Dhobi Vs. Vrajlal Bapalal Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom286; (1935)37BOMLR255; 158Ind.Cas.33
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad by which he directed that suit No. 538 of 1932 be transferred to the Court of the Second Joint Subordinate Judge from that of the Third Joint Subordinate Judge. It is argued that that order was made without jurisdiction. Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that orders for transfers of suits may be made by the High Court or the District Court, and it is contended, therefore, that this being an order of transfer, the Warned First Class Subordinate Judge was not competent to make it. On the other hand, for the respondent it is said that this is not an order for transfer that the suit was filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad, and that it was competent to the senior Subordinate Judge of that Court to make an administrative order transferring it from one of the Subordinate Judges attached to that Court to another. I directed the...
Tag this Judgment!Sharanbasappa Tippanna Indi Vs. Sanganbasappa Shidramappa Shahapur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom256; (1935)37BOMLR346
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made to this Court by the First Glass Subordinate Judge of Bijapur under Section 60 of the Indian Stamp Act. The question which he refers to this Court is whether a consent decree creating a charge on immoveable property which is not the subject-matter of the suit requires a stamp. Decrees of this nature are very common ; but it was only by the amendment of the Indian Registration Act, which came into force in 1930, that such decrees became the subject of compulsory registration, and until that event happened it had apparently not occurred to anybody that such decrees were liable to stamp duty. But the Sub-Registrars now, acting under directions given to them by the Commissioner, require such decrees to be stamped, and the question we have to consider is whether they are correct in so doing.2. It is conceded that in the schedule to the Indian Stamp Act enumerating the instruments which require to be stamped there is no direct reference to ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Keshav Vasudeo Kortikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR179
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision by the applicant who was convicted by the Special Magistrate, First Class, at Pandharpur, of offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, the substance of the charges against him being that as Deputy Nazir of the Sessions Court of Sholapur he misappropriated monies forming part of the estates of minors. He appealed against his conviction and his appeal was dismissed by the Sessions Judge at Bijapur.2. The original complaint made to the police by the successor of the applicant as Deputy Nazir of the Sessions Court had alleged that ten persons had committed these offences, viz., the present applicant the then Deputy Nazir and various subordinate officials and others, including a man named Laulkar who was the estate peon of the Pandharpur Circle. On that complaint to the police, a special officer of the Criminal Investigation Department made an investigation into the subject-matter of the complaint, and it is, I th...
Tag this Judgment!Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Saroj Kumar Acharjya Choud ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR327
John Wallis, J.1. The appeal in this case, which now comes before the Board for the third time, is solely concerned with questions of the ascertainment of mesne profits under the decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Faridpore, of July 22, 1907, which were restored, with a variation which is not material, by the judgment of this Board of July 2, 1917, after it had been set aside by the High Court, Four separate suits for possession and mesne profits had been instituted against the present appellant, Secretary of State for India in Council, by four sets of co-sharers, each claiming a one-fourth share in the suit lands, but three of these suits had been compromised while the decrees were under appeal to the High Court, and the present respondents are the plaintiffs in suit No. 17 of 1902, who were not parties to the compromise. The suit lands form part of an island chur which began to emerge out of the bed of the river Padma, a part of the Ganges, in 1888, and was taken possession of on be...
Tag this Judgment!Babu Mahadeo Prasad Singh Vs. Karia Bharati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR333
Shadi Lal, J.1. This appeal relates to a village known as Saktni which is situated in the District of Gorakhpur in the Province of Agra. The village formed part of the estate annexed to the math of Kanchanpur in that District and was sold to the defendants, hereinafter called the appellants, on March 1, 1914, by one Rajbans Bharthi alleged to be the Mahant of the math at that time. Rajbans died on March 21, 1916, and the present action was brought on February 23, 1926, by Karia Bharthi, who claimed to be his successor as the Mahant of the shrine.2. A large number of pleas were raised to defeat the suit, but there are only two questions which have been argued on this appeal; first, that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit; second, that the claim was barred by limitation.3. The facts of the case bearing on these questions do not admit of any real dispute. In April, 1894, one Bachchu Bharthi, who was admittedly the Mahant of the math, died, and two persons, namely Rajbans ...
Tag this Judgment!Biyamma Kashimsaheb Inamdar Vs. Ahmadsaheb Mohaddinsaheb Mulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom245; (1935)37BOMLR257
Broomfield, J.1. The only question of any importance in this appeal is whether a female is entitled to inherit what are called mullanki or mullagiri lands, that is lands assigned for the remuneration of a village Mulla. The appellant, plaintiff in the suit giving rise to this appeal, is the sister of the last holder. Part of the claim related to lands which are not mullanki lands, and we are not now concerned with them. The trial Judge allowed her claim to succeed to the mullanki lands, and not only to her own share in them but also to that of her sister, defendant No. 2, who has made no claim to them on her own behalf. The District Judge in appeal refused to allow plaintiff to recover her sister's share and also refused her any share in the mullanki lands. The plaintiff now comes in second appeal. Dealing with the plaintiff's contention that she is entitled to succeed to the lands and get the duties of Mulla performed by a proxy, the learned District Judge says that he conceives it to...
Tag this Judgment!Srischandra Nandy Vs. Baijnath Jugal Kishore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR323
Thankerton, J.1. These consolidated appeals consist of an appeal by the defendants Nos. 1 and 3 in the suit and a cross-appeal by the plaintiff from two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated May 21, 1931, which, subject to a slight modification, confirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad dated July 30, 1927.2. The plaintiff, who is a sub-lessee of the coal-mining rights of a part of Mouza Gararia, instituted the present suit on May 28, 1925, against the predecessor of the present defendant No. 1, who was a similar lessee of Mouza Ekra, which lies immediately to the south of Mouza Gararia, and defendants Nos. 2. and 3, who were in succession the agents of defendant No. 1 in working his coal, defendant No. 3 having succeeded defendant No. 2 in May, 1924. The suit was based on the alleged conversion of an area of the plaintiff's coal, and he asked for an order on the defendants to vacate the land encroached on, for an injunction prohibiting future trespass and...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Appibai Vs. Khimji Cooverji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1934
Reported in: AIR1936Bom138; (1936)38BOMLR77
B.J. Wadia, J.1. Plaintiff has filed this suit for a declaration that she was validly married to the defendant on March 31, 1934, at Ujjain, which is in the Gwalior State, and for an order for separate maintenance and residence against the defendant. She also claims certain ornaments or the price thereof which defendant had, according to her, promised to give her at the time of the marriage, and a further sum of Rs. 6,200 which represents the amount of her indebtedness to different creditors which he had also promised to pay at the same time. The defendant contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. He denies that there was any ceremony of marriage according to the Hindu rites. His case is that he went through a ceremony of marriage, but some of the essential marriage rites were not performed. He also contends that the marriage was not registered in the records of the Gwalior State, as required by the law of the State, and was therefore not valid, but that contention ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mhasku Kalu Kudale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1934
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR109
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the two appellants, who were accused Nos. 1 and 2, and two other persons who were accused Nos. 3 and 4, were charged before the Sessions Judge, Poona, with offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, that is, with offence of murder, and of causing the evidence of an offence to disappear. The offence under Section 302 is triable by a. Judge and jury, and the offence under Section 201 is triable by the Judge with assessors. On the charge of murder the unanimous verdict of the jury was. one of 'not guilty', and the Judge accepted the verdict and acquitted the accused, although he considered the verdict wrong. Upon the charge under Section 201 the assessors were of opinion that the accused were not guilty, but the learned Judge, disagreeing with the assessors, convicted all the accused, and sentenced them to four years' rigorous imprisonment. From that conviction accused Nos. 1 and 2 have appealed.2. The case provides an illustratio...
Tag this Judgment!Mhasku Malu Kudale and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1934
Reported in: AIR1935Bom165; 158Ind.Cas.1090
Beaumont, C.J.1. In this case the two appellants, who were accused Nos. 1 and 2, and two other persons who were accused Nos. 3 and 4, were charged before the Sessions Judge, Poona, with offences under Sections 302 and 201, Penal Code, that is, with offence of murder, and of causing the evidence of an offence to disappear. The offence under Section 302 is triable by a Judge and jury, and the offence under Section 201 is triable by the Judge with assessors. On the charge of murder the unanimous verdict of the jury was one of 'not guilty,' and the Judge accepted the verdict and acquitted the accused, although he considered the verdict wrong. Upon the charge under Section 201 the assessors were of opinion that the accused were not guilty, but the learned Judge, disagreeing with the assessors, convicted all the, accused, and sentenced them to four years' rigorous imprisonment. From that conviction accused Nos. 1 and 2 have appealed.2. The case provides an illustration of the sort of anomaly...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »