Mumbai Court December 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.
Govind Shripad Lokhande Vs. Shrinivas Krishna Hebbali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR548
Barlee, J.1. This case has been referred to a full bench, and the question referred is in these terms-Whether by virtue of a notification in this form: 'In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (i) of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), the Governor in Council is pleased to empower Mr. V.B. Halbhavi, First Class. Subordinate Judfee, Dharwar, to hear suits which may be instituted for any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable-or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust'; the Court of the First Class Subordinate. Judge, Dharwar, presided over by Mr. V.B. Halbhavi, was a Court duly empowered in that behalf within the meaning of Section 92(1)?Similar notifications have been a subject of enquiry in this Court already. Mr. Justice Divatia in Bhimaji Bhagwanji v. Gamaji Motiji (1934) civil revision application No. 244 of 1934 dec...
Govind Sripad Lokhande and ors. Vs. Shrinivas Krishna Hebbali and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom275
ORDER Of REFERENCEBroomfield, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of Mr. V.B. Halbhavi, First Class Subordinate Judge, Dharwar, in a suit under Section 92, Civil P.C.A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the appellants that the Judge had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The point arises in this way. Section 92 provides that suits of the nature dealt with in the section may be instituted in the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the Local Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject matter of the trust is situate. By a notification dated 10th March 1930, Government empoweredMr. V.B. Halbhavi, First Class Subordinate Judge, Dharwar, to hear suits which may be instituted for any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administ...
Ramchandra Narayan Badale Vs. Murlidhar Yeshwant Khambekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR599; 173Ind.Cas.36
Broomfield, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit for possession of property under a deed of gift dated July 7, 1930. The material facts are these. One Raghunath Sakharam had two sons, Bandhu and Krishnaji, and three daughters. Bandhu and one of the daughters predeceased him so that when he died on March 8, 1891, he left a son Krishnaji and two daughters Sundrabai and Bajibai. Krishnaji died in 1896. In 1906, Raghunath's widow Gangabai adopted a son Narayan who in course of time married and had a son Ramchandra. Narayan died in 1922, Gangabai died in 1930 and her daughter Sundrabai made a gift of some of the property comprised in the estate to the plaintiff who is the son of her sister Bajibai. She also sold other property to one Khanderao Sakharam. That alienation is the subject of other suits with which we are not concerned.2. The plaintiff has brought this suit to get possession of the land conveyed to him by the deed of gift from Ramchandra, the son of Narayan adopted by Gangabai to ...
Ramchandra Narayan Badale Vs. Murlidhar Yeshwant Khambekar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Bom20
Broomfield, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit for possession of property under a deed of gift dated 7th July 1930. The material facts are these. One Raghunath Sakharam had two sons, Bandhu and Krishnaji, and three daughters. Bandhu and one of the daughters predeceased him so that when he died on 8th March 1891, he left a son Krishnaji and two daughters Sundrabai and Bajibai. Krishnaji died in 1896. In 1906 Raghunath's widow Gangabai adopted a son Narayan who in course of time married and had a son Ramchandra. Narayan died in 1922, Gangabai died in 1930 and her daughter Sundrabai made a gift of some of the property comprised in the estate to the plaintiff who is the son of her sister Bajibai. She also sold other property to one Khanderao Sakharam. That alienation is the subject of other suits with which we are not concerned.2. The plaintiff has brought this suit to get possession of the land conveyed to him by the deed of gift from Ramchandra, the son of Narayan, adopted by Gangabai t...
Mahant Ramdhan Puri Vs. Chaudhury Lachmi Narain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR363
George Rankin, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was. brought in forma pauperis on September 18, 1922, by the three sons of one Kashinath against no fewer than seventy-eight defendants. The plaint is a long and complicated document of sixty-nine paragraphs and the general, outline of its contents is that Kashinath, the father and karta of a Mitakshara family, had embarked upon a career of vice and extravagance, in the course of which he had parted with a number of the family properties and had lost other properties by sales in execution of decrees. The purpose of the plaint was to recover various properties from the persons to whom they had been thus alienated, upon the footing that the alienations were not made for family necessity, and if made for Kashinath's antecedent debt, were not binding against his sons by reason that they were made for purposes, which the Hindu law regards as immoral. In respect that all the transactions impugned were brought under the allegation a...
Hazariram Marwari Vs. Bansidhar Dhandhania
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR369
George Rankin, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether under Rules 18 and 20 of Order XXI in the First Schedule to the Civil Procedure Code, there can be a set-off in execution proceedings of two decrees hereunder mentioned. The High Court at Patna have allowed the set-off (February 6, 1933), after the Subordinate Judge of Godda had refused it (April 11, 1931).2. The decrees in question are, first, a decree for mesne profits dated January 15, 1924, of which the present appellants took an assignment on November 12, 1925 : secondly, a final decree for sale dated December 18, 1925. Both decrees were transferred to the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Godda for execution.3. The history of the matter may be outlined as follows : One, Thakur Bar-ham, was the proprietor of an estate in the Santal Perganas called Patsanda. He borrowed money from certain persons at whose instance in July, 1904, six annas interest in Patsanda was sold in execution of a decree and bought as to two annas by S...
Chanbasappa Rachappa Shettar Vs. Madiwalappa Gurshiddappa Shettar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR591
Wassoodew, J.1. The issue involved in this appeal is as to the validity of the adoption of the appellant Chanbasappa, defendant No. 1, by a Hindu widow who was defendant No. 2.2. The material facts bearing on that issue are these. One Rachappa possessed considerable property some of which was property assigned as remuneration for the officiating watandar in the watan known as the pyati shetti watan of Dharwar. Rachappa at the time of his death in 1900 was the officiating watandar. He left behind him no issue. His widow Irawwa, defendant No. 2, according to the rules of devolution, succeeded to the watan. In 1904, she adopted one Channappa who did not survive long after the adoption and died in 1905 before his marriage. The successor of the deceased Channappa in respect to the watan property was his collateral Gurushiddappa shown in the genealogy given in the lower Court's judgment. Gurushiddappa gave his son San-Shivappa in adoption to Irawwa in 1906. San-Shivappa assumed office as wat...
Chanbasappa Rachappa Shettar Vs. Madiwalappa Gurushiddappa Shettar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom337
Wassoodew, J.1. The issue involved in this appeal is as to the; validity of the adoption of the appellant Chanbasappa, defendant 1, by a Hindu widow who was defendant 2. The material facts bearing on that issue are these: One Rachappa possessed considerable property some' of which was property assigned as remuneration for the officiating watandar in the watan known as the pyati shetti watan of Dharwar. Rachappa at the time of his death in 1900 was the officiating watandar. He left behind him no issue. His widow Irawwa, defendant 2, according to the rules of devolution, succeeded to the watan. In 1904, she adopted. one Channappa who did not survive long after the adoption and died in 1905 before his-marriage. The successor of the deceased Channappa in respect of the watan property was his collateral Gurushiddappa shown in the genealogy given in the lower Court's judgment; Gurushiddappa gave his son San-Shivappa in adoption to Irawwa in 1906. San-Shivappa assumed office as watandar and w...
The United Motor Finance Company Vs. Addison and Company Limited
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR706
George Rankin, J.1. The plaintiff firm sues the defendants, who are a limited company trading in Madras, for damages for fraud in connection with the sale of motor vehicles. The parties had been dealing with each other since 1924, and until 1929 the dealings gave rise to no complaint, but in respect of forty transactions of 1929 and 1930, the present action was brought on August 7, 1933, on the Original Side of the High Court at Madras. It was tried by Stone J. in 1934 and by his decree dated May 9, 1934, he found for the plaintiff firm in respect of twenty-five transactions, directing an inquiry as to damages. On appeal, a division bench (Varadachariar and Bum JJ.) varied his findings, with the result that the plaintiff firm succeeded as to twelve items, but in respect of some of these damages were directed to be assessed on a different basis from that adopted by Stone J.2. On this appeal to His Majesty the decision of the division bench was complained of in respect of thirty-five out...
Hanmant Raghunath Nadgouda Vs. Gurunath Malhar Gumaste
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1936
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR88
N.J. Wadia, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits Nos. 130 and 134 of 1930 filed by the respondent Gurunath Malhar Gumaste against Hanmant Raghunath Nadgowda and Ramchandra Anandrao Nadgowda to recover a one-fourth share in the suit properties by partition with mesne profits for three years before suit, future mesne profits and costs. The plaintiff in both the suits was the same. The defendants in the two suits were the descendants of the original holders of the Nadgowda watan. The suit property consists of the watani nadgowdki inam lands of Hippargi Para-gana. The plaintiff claimed that his ancestors were the gumastas of the Nadgowda watandars, and that by a sanad (exhibit 51) of the year 1791 Shamrao Anandrao Nadgowda the then watandar had made a grant of one-fourth of the lands to the plaintiff's ancestor Kashirao Honno for the gumastagiri service performed in the past and to be performed in the future. He claimed that his ancestors up to the time of his adoptive father Malh...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »