Mumbai Court October 1935 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.
Srinivas Prasad Singh Vs. Keshava Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR146
Thankerton, J.1. The appellant, who attained majority in 1923, filed the present suit on June 12, 1926, seeking to set aside a compromise decree passed in 1912, by the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal. On January 25, 1932, the appellant's suit was dismissed for want of prosecution by a judgment and order of the High Court passed in its original jurisdiction (Lort Williams J.), which was affirmed on appeal by a judgment and order of the High Court dated July 11, 1932. Hence the present appeal.2. The litigation is concerned with the title to the Dumraon Raj, a large and important estate situated in the Shahabad District of the Province of Bihar and Orissa and other places, and ether properties pertaining to the Raj.3. In 1894, the then Maharaja of Dumraon, Sir Radha Prasad Singh, died leaving no male issue, but leaving a widow, Maharani Beni Prasad Kuari, and a daughter. By an authority executed and registered in 1889, which he confirmed by his will, the Maharaja had em...
Bhagwan Bakhsh Singh Vs. Mahesh Bakhsh Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1
John Wallis, J.1. In this case Bhagwan Baksh Singh, the first plaintiff, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, who gives his age as twenty-one, instituted the present suit on March 7,1929, to recover possession with mesne profits of the share of Chatarpal Singh, his mother's husband, in the suit properties belonging to the joint family of which Chatarpal was a member, impleading the first and second defendants, who are surviving members of the joint family, and the third and fourth defendants, who are widows of deceased members. To raise money for this litigation he has alienated a half share of the properties in the suit to Thakhur Mahadeo Singh, the second, plaintiff.2. It is not now in dispute that at the time of the plaintiff's birth, his mother, Musammat Dilwant Kuer, the daughter of Nakched Singh, was the lawfully 'married wife of Chatarpal Singh, but it is alleged by the defendants in the written statement that, before the gauna or consummation ceremony, it came to light tha...
Byramji Bomanji Talati Vs. the Official Assignee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR71
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal raises a short point of insolvency law, on which there appears to be no direct authority. The question is, whether a creditor can prove for a debt which was barred by limitation at the date of the order of adjudication, but was not so barred at the date of the act of insolvency on which the adjudication was founded. The debt in question was incurred by the debtor on November 19, 1928; on August 18, 1931, there was an act of insolvency, on which a petition for adjudication was presented on October 14, 1931; and an order of adjudication was made on March 27,1933. The point is not likely to arise frequently, because, as a rule, adjudication follows promptly, if it follows at all, upon an act of insolvency; but in this case there were special circumstances, which resulted in a delay of nearly two years between the act of insolvency and the order of adjudication. The Official Assignee held that the debt was provable, and his decision was upheld by the ...
Ramasray Prasad Choudhary Vs. Radhika Debi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR120
John Wallis, J.1. This is a suit instituted by Babuyee Radhika Devi, a minor suing by her father-in-law as her next friend, for a declaration that she will be entitled to succeed to the share of her father Ramakant in the suit properties on the death of her mother Parbati and the determination of her widow's estate, on the ground that at the time of his death on December 29. 1918, Ramakant had become separated from his brother Ramasray and his nephew Bindeshwari, defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The High Court at Patna reversing the judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga has decreed the suit, and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have appealed.2. The following genealogical table shows the state of the family. Raghubar Chaudhry. | ------------------------------------ | | Chhatardhari = Musammat Makho Bhekhdari = Musammat Chowdhry Chowdhrain. Chowdhry | Alakrupi. (died Dec., 1914) | (died 1915).| | | | Baleshar Chowdhry | ------------------------------------------------------ | | |Bhagirath Pras...
FidahuseIn Pirmahomedalli Vs. Bai Monghibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom257; (1936)38BOMLR397
Chitre, J.1. The simple issue I am asked to try in this case is whether a Khoja of the Shiah Ishna Ashari sect can dispose of the whole of his property by a testamentary disposition. Since 1847, when the well-known case of Kojahs and Memons' Case (1847) Perry O. C. 110 was decided, the law applicable to a dead Khoja has been agitated and a series of cases have laid down beyond doubt that in matters of simple succession and inheritance the Hindu law applies. Two of them arc Appeal Court judgments, and yet, a single Judge in recent times; threw a doubt (in itself an obiter) on the ground that only such part of the Hindu law of succession and inheritance can be said to apply as is proved to have been adopted by the Khojas. His reasoning is that ordinarily the Hindu law governs the Hindus and the Mahomedan law governs the Mahomedans. Unless, therefore, any portion of the Hindu law is proved to have been adopted by the Khojas as their personal law the ordinary presumption should prevail. Th...
Abdul Rehman Mohamud Yusuf Vs. Sir Phiroze Cursetji Sethna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom88; (1936)38BOMLR34
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is a suit in which the six plaintiffs sue the defendants for rent under a lease dated January 22, 1922. Defendant No. 1 is the original lessee under the lease, and he is sued by virtue of his express covenant to pay the rent. Defendant No. 2 is the assignee of the lease, and as against him a decree for payment of the rent was granted, and from that decree there is no appeal. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 were sued in the capacity of partners with defendant No. 2. The suit was dismissed against them, and there is no appeal from that dismissal. So that the only question with which we have to deal on this appeal is the liability of defendant No. 1 on his express covenant for payment of the rent.2. The matter is one of very great importance to the parties, because the rent reserved under the lease was over Rs. 16,000 per month, the property, we are told, has fallen very much in value and cannot be underlet at anything like the rent reserved by the lease, and defe...
Ford Motor Company of India Limited Vs. the Secretary of State for Ind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom356; (1936)38BOMLR283
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Tyabji, and it raises a question as to the basis upon which the plaintiffs, Ford Motor Company of India, Limited, ought to be charged under the Sea Customs Act, 1878. Section 29 of that Act provides that-On the importation into, or exportation from, any customs-port of any goods, whether liable to duty or not, the owner of such goods shall, in his bill of entry or shipping bill, as the case may be, state the real value, quantity and description of such goods to the best of his knowledge and belief.2. Then Section 30 deals with the manner in which the real value has to be ascertained, and is in the following terms:-For the purposes of this Act the real value shall be deemed to be-(a) the wholesale cash price, less trade discount, for which goods of the like kind and quality are sold, or are capable of being sold, at the time and place of importation or exportation, as the case may be, without any abatement or de...
Shrimant Ramchandra Mukundrao Kibe Vs. the Servants of India Society
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom272; (1936)38BOMLR518
Barlee, J.1. These appeals were decided on October 4, 1935, and both were dismissed with costs. Appeal No. 316 of 1928 was not decided on the merits but was dismissed, because the appellant did not pay a sufficient Court-fee, and was not willing to rectify the omission. Appeal No. 86 of 1928 was decided on the merits.2. In speaking to the minutes in both these cases, the learned advocates ask for two sets of pleaders' fees under Rule 97 in Appendix E at p. 49 of the Rules of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which is the same as Section 20 of the Bombay Pleaders' Act. It has been decided in the case of Tulsi v. Onkar Huna I.L.R. (1927) 51 Bom. 492 : 29 Bom. L.R. 897 that unless the Court otherwise directs, the fees of two pleaders should be allowed on taxation of the bill of costs in cases falling under Clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Bombay Pleaders' Act, 1920. Therefore the parties in these appeals are entitled to two sets of pleaders' fees as a...
Shambhuprasad Umiashankar Vs. Lalbhai Bhikhabhai Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-03-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom219; (1936)38BOMLR264; 163Ind.Cas.293
Broomfield, J.1. The parties in this case are the owners of adjoining houses in Ahmedabad. The defendants-respondents raised the height of their house and in so doing cut off a pankh or weather-board projecting from the side wall of the plaintiffs' house over defendants' land. It appears that this was mostly done after the suit was filed. The plaintiffs sought an injunction against the cutting of the pankh and for the restoration of what had been cut. They also alleged that the defendants had made certain encroachments on their wall and prayed for the removal of these.2. The trial Court found that there had been a slight encroachment on the first floor and ordered its removal, but it dismissed the suit otherwise. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs. In appeal the Assistant Judge dismissed the appeal with costs.3. In this second appeal learned counsel for the appellants-plaintiffs contends that his clients were entitled to relief either by mandatory injunction or at any rat...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›