Mumbai Court July 1935 Judgments
Ramchandra Doddappa Naik Vs. Hanamnaik Dodnaik Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom1; (1935)37BOMLR920
Divatia, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the defendants in a suit by the plaintiffs for a declaration that defendant No. 1, Ramchandra, was neither a legitimate nor an illegitimate son of one Doddappanaik and that he was not entitled to a share in the property of the said Doddappanaik, and for consequential reliefs.2. The facts are shortly these : Doddappanaik was admittedly a Shudra. He had two wives, and one woman who was a Brahmin widow, named Gangava, was his mistress arid lived in a state of continuous concubinage with him. The plaintiffs are the legitimate son and nephews of Doddappanaik and defendant No. 1 is found to have been born of Gangava by Doddappanaik. The trial Court found that defendant No. 1 was an illegitimate son of Doddappanaik and as the latter was a Shudra, his mistress Gangava, though a Brahmin widow, became a Shudra by living with him, and that, therefore, defendant No. 1, being born of Shudra parents, was entitled to a share in Doddappanaik's property a...
Tag this Judgment!Dahyabhai Vanmalidas Shah Vs. Hiralal Umedram Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom3; (1935)37BOMLR939
Barlee, J.1. The principal question in this case is whether by the possession of a pankh (a projection) overhanging the property of defendant No. 1, the plaintiff has obtained title to the column of air below it so that he may resist the defendant's claim to build on his own land, or whether the pankh which has existed for a good many years is a mere easement.2. The facts which have been stated in the judgments of the lower Courts are that there is a joint wall between the plaintiff's and the defendant's properties. On the upper portion of that wall the plaintiff had erected a pankh, or weatherboard, to protect it, many years ago. The learned trial Judge has held that the pankh had been in existence for more than twenty years, and that it was intended for the protection of the side walls of the house, but that the protection will be equally or even more effectively afforded by the defendant's new building, and there will be no irreparable damage to the plaintiff's house if the eaves ar...
Tag this Judgment!Rameshwar Baksh Singh Vs. Balraj Kuar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR862
Shadi Lal, J.1. On June 4, 1918, one Babu Indarsen Singh, a taluqdar E of the estate of Dhaurwa situate in the Province of Oudh, died, leaving him surviving two widows, Annapurna Kuar and Balraj Kuar, and two daughters, namely Brijraj Kuar by his deceased wife Jadunath Kuar, and Hemraj Kuar by his wife Balraj Kuar. The senior widow, Annapurna Kuar, succeeded to B the entire property of her deceased husband ; and on November 22, 1923, she made a will by which she devised the property in dispute to the junior widow, Balraj Kuar, for her life, and, after the latter's death, to the two daughters of her husband in equal shares as absolute owners.2. In June, 1929, Annapurna Kuar died, and the estate left by her was claimed by the surviving widow, but her claim was resisted by the sons of Babu Indarsen Singh's daughter, Brijraj Kuar. The revenue authorities, who dealt with the dispute in the first instance, accepted the counterclaim made by the sons of Brijraj Kuar ; and directed that the mut...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Atma Ram Vs. Lala Beni Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-23-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR871
John Wallis, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court at Allahabad in exercise of its powers of revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and raises questions as to the High Court's interpretation of the section, and as to the claim of a next reversioner to carry on at his own expense a suit which had been filed by the Collector under the local Court of Wards Act as representing two widows for possession of the suit properties which were alleged to form part of the estate of their deceased husband, in consequence of the Collector having applied to withdraw the suit. The suit had been instituted by the Collector of Saharanpur under Section 55 of the United Provinces Court of Wards Act on behalf of Jaimala Kuer and Chando Kuer, who were the surviving widows of Janeshwar Das and are hereinafter referred to as the widows, to recover certain properties in possession of three of the defendants which were alleged to be part of the estate of their deceased hu...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Gani Sumar Vs. the Reception Committee of the 48th Indian Nation ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom250; (1936)38BOMLR380; 163Ind.Cas.532
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an application by the petitioner in the matter of award No. 21 of 1935 to amend the title of his petition filed on May 3, 1935, and for leave under Order I, Rule 8, of the Civil Procedure Code. The petition was filed to set aside the award dated February 2, 1935, under the Indian Arbitration Act of 1899 on a submission dated December 17, 1934, to which the petitioner and the Reception Committee of the 48th Indian National Congress were parties. The petition was originally filed against (1) The Reception Committee, and (2) against Abidally Jafferbhai described as the General Secretary of the Reception Committee. On the hearing of the petition in chambers counsel for the respondents raised an objection to the title of the petition on the ground that the Reception Committee was not a registered society and could not be sued as such, and the petition, was adjourned for three weeks in order to enable the petitioner to make such amendments as he might be advised to m...
Tag this Judgment!Bala Dhondi Satwade Vs. Baya Bhagvant Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1087; 166Ind.Cas.771
Divatia, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit to recover possession of certain property as reversionary heir of one Manjula.2. The suit property belonged originally to one Vakuji and the plaintiff is a separated brother of Vakuji, who died leaving Manjula as his widow. She had a daughter named Goja, who was married to one Dnyanu' in 1913. On July 10, 1913, Manjula, who was in possession of the property as a Hindu widow, made a deed of gift in favour of her daughter Goja and Goja's husband Dnyanu. Goja was a minor at that time and, therefore, the gift was made to her through her guardian and husband Dnyanu. It is clear that this gift was a joint gift in favour of these two persons. She says in the deed of gift that she had selected Dnyanu as her son-in-law according to her choice and had brought him to her house, and then with reference to both the donees she proceeds :-As you are looking well to my maintenance and I am sure will also look after the same in the future, and as I h...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Yadavgir Dharamgir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1935
Reported in: AIR1936Bom19; (1935)37BOMLR931; 160Ind.Cas.505
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Jalgaon awarding the plaintiff Rs. 3,915 damages for breach of contract.2. The plaintiff was an employee of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway, which is a State-owned railway represented by the defendant, the Secretary of State. He was a passenger-brakesman employed at Bhusawal. It appears that in February, 1930, there was a general strike of the Railway employees which the plaintiff joined. There were negotiations between the All-India Railwaymen's Federation on behalf of the employees and the Railway Board. Certain terms of the settlement of the dispute were offered by the Member of Commerce and Industries and they were accepted by the Federation. These terms were issued in the form of a communigue by the Government of India and they were briefly embodied in a notice which was published by the Agent of the G. I. P. Railway. There is no dispute now as to the terms. They were :Strikers who presen...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhmi Chand Vs. Anandi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR849
Shadi Lal, J.1. on June 5, 1915, two brothers, Baldeo Sahai and Seth Lakhmi Chand, who constituted a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law, executed a document providing for the disposal of their estate. It was presented for registration, on June 8, at the office of the Sub-Registrar, and was duly registered on June 9.2. This document, which has been variously described as an agreement or a joint will of the two brothers stated, inter alia, that, in the event of one brother dying without leaving a male issue, his widow's name should be substituted for that of the deceased husband in the public records relating to the estate, Her interest in the estate was defined in the eighth paragraph of the instrument, and, as there is a controversy between the parties about the interpretation to be placed upon it, it is necessary to set it out in extenso :-(8) We, both the parties, have, up to this time, been jointly managing all the estate affairs and shall continue to ...
Tag this Judgment!Umabai Bhagwant Rajaram Vs. Nani Mahadev Jakhadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1935
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR100
Barlee, J.1. The plaintiff, Nani Durgabai, is the daughter of one Rajaram Trimbak deceased. Defendant No. 1, Umabai, is the widow of Bhagwant, Rajaram's only son. Defendant No. 2, Murlidhar, called Murlidhar Bhagwant, is a boy adopted by Umabai as the son of Bhagwant after Bhagwant's death.2. The family consisted of Rajaram, his son Bhagwant, his daughter Nani, his wife Krishnabai, and his daughter-in-law Umabai. On March 6, 1915, Rajaram died, and the first question which we have to decide is whether his son Bhagwant predeceased him, as Nani says, or whether Bhagwant, died on March 25, 1915, as Umabai says. If Umabai is correct, then Bhagwant, who was joint with his father, was the last male member of the joint family and his estate came to Umabai, his widow, and Murlidhar as the adopted son. But if, as Nani says, Bhagwant predeceased his father, we will have to consider the question of law whether the adoption made by Umabai in 1927 was valid and whether by that adoption Nani was div...
Tag this Judgment!Hoe Kim Seing Vs. Maung Ba Chit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1935
Reported in: (1935)37BOMLR866
Shadi Lal, J.1. This appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Rangoon raises the question whether the property in certain paddy belonging to one Maung Po Ni had passed to the appellant, Hoe Kim Seing, before the date on which the estate of the former vested in the Official Receiver who was appointed by the Court adjudging him an insolvent.2. The circumstances, which have led to the dispute, may be briefly stated. Maung Po Ni (hereinafter called Po Ni) was a cultivator of paddy in Burma and also dealt in the purchase and sale of that commodity. He made his purchases with borrowed capital, and in 1930 he was indebted to several persons, including the appellant, who was a merchant doing business on a large scale in the purchase of paddy. He had advanced about two lakhs of rupees to Po Ni for the purchase of paddy, which was to be delivered by the debtor to the creditor in satisfaction of the debt.3. It appears that Po Ni was unable to discharge his liabilities, and, accor...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »