Mumbai Court January 1936 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.
Raja Inuganti Venkatarama Rao Vs. Raja Sobhanadri Appa Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR457
George Lowndes, J.1. The issue between the parties to this appeal is as to the validity of a conveyance, made to the father of the first and second respondents, of a quarter share in the village of Somavaram, in the Kistna district, of which the appellant seeks to recover possession with mesne profits. The property in dispute had been the subject of a gift (the validity of which is not disputed) in July, 1900, by the late Maharaja of Venkatagiri, to the appellant who was then a minor. It was sold by the appellant's father, purporting to act as his guardian, to the father of the respondents on October 14, 1910, and upon a partition after his death came to the first respondent, who alone appears before the Board to contest the appellant's claim. It is common ground between the parties that if the conveyance was effective, the appellant's suit must fail; for if it were necessary for him to ask that the conveyance should be set aside as not binding on him, his suit was out of time; if, on ...
Talakchand Kasturchand Vs. Bhau Maruti Giranje
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom286
Macklin, J.1. This action was instituted by the plaintiff upon a mortgage executed in his favour by the defendant for a sum of Rs. 2,000. Both the trial Court and the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the consideration was not proved. The plaintiff comes in second appeal. According to the plaintiff, the history of the transactions was that one Namdeo was a debtor of Waive, who owed Rs. 27,000 to the plaintiff. The defendant bought the sugar-cane crop of Namdeo; but instead of paying Namdeo direct he undertook the liability of paying Namdeo's debt to Waive, and in order to pay off that debt by Namdeo to Waive he went to the plaintiff and executed the mortgage in suit, as the result of which the plaintiff gave Waive a credit of Rs. 2,000 on account of what was owing from Waive to the plaintiff, and Waive at the same time gave the defendant a credit of Rs. 2,000 against the liability which the defendant had accepted to Waive on behalf of Namdeo. The deed itself b...
Krishnadas Tulsidas Vs. Dwarkadas Kaliandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom459; (1936)38BOMLR829; 166Ind.Cas.172
B.J. Wadia, J.1. Plaintiffs have taken out this originating summons for the construction of a portion of Clause 5 of the will of one Ranchoddas Tribhowandas Modi, relating to the payment of a legacy of Rs. 10,000. The legacy was to be paid to ' Bhai Tulsidas Keshavdas and (his) sons and daughter '. Plaintiffs are the sons of Tulsidas. The will was made in 1914, and at that date the only children of Tulsidas who were in existence were his two sons, the plaintiffs, and one daughter Kusumbai. Tulsidas died in 1914, and Kusumbai died in 1924. The testator died at Bombay on or about May 10, 1930. Plaintiffs contend that the legacy was given jointly to Tulsidas and his sons and daughter, and that Tulsidas and Kusumbai being both dead, they are entitled to the entire legacy.2. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are three of the proving executors of the will. In 1930 a suit was filed by Jugmohandas Kaliandas against the executors of the will for the administration of the estate of Ranchhoddas Modi, be...
Shankar Atmaram Wani Vs. Keshav Govind Tambulkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR505
Broomfield, J.1. These are companion appeals in execution proceedings from the orders of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Jalgaon disposing of two darkhasts in accordance with an adjustment set up by the respondents- judgment-debtors. The facts of the case are somewhat complicated and must be set out at some little length.2. The plaintiff-appellant got a decree in suit No. 102 of 1924 for Rs. 10,000 to be paid by annual instalments of Rs. 1,000. He filed a darkhast on December 17, 1927, to recover Rs. 3,217-9-0, the amount then due, by sale of the mortgaged property. This darkhast was No. 1606 of 1927 and it was transferred to the Collector for execution. The plaintiff had another decree in suit No. 254 of 1923 against the defendants. This was for the amount of Rs. 14,500 payable by annual instalments of Rs. 2,000. The darkhast for the execution of this decree was filed on August 17, 1928, to recover Rs. 9,570 by sale of the mortgaged property. The first of these darkhasts is the s...
Raoji Bhavdu Vs. the Bombay Baroda and Central India Railway
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom274; (1936)38BOMLR514
Macklin, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are a firm of commission agents in Nandurbar. In March, 1928, they bought on behalf of the firm Raghunathmal Satyanarayan & Co. a quantity of castor seeds and sent them by rail from Nandurbar to Bombay for the purpose of delivery being eventually taken by Raghunathmal Satyanarayan & Co. The railway receipt was made out in the name of the plaintiffs themselves (in other words the goods were consigned to self) and was handed over by the plaintiffs to one Bansilal, who was an agent of Raghunathmal Satyanarayan & Co. According to the plaintiffs' the understanding between themselves and Bansilal was that Bansilal should forward the railway receipt to Raghunathmal Satyanarayan & Co., that Raghunathmal Satyanarayan & Co. should then remit the purchase price of the goods to the plaintiffs at Nandurbar along with the railway receipt, and that the railway receipt should then be re-transmitted from Nandurbar endorsed by the plaintiffs for delivery to Ragh...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›