Mumbai Court March 1936 Judgments
Mallappa Gurupadapa Belvaldavar Vs. Anant Balkrishna Najrayanpeit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom386; (1936)38BOMLR941; 166Ind.Cas.154
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit property on the ground that it had been sold to the defendants by the plaintiff's guardian, and that the sale was not for legal necessity and was invalid against the plaintiff. The learned Judge made an order that the plaintiff do recover possession of the suit lands from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 together with Rs. 1,950 as past mesne profits from the date of the sale. The respondents have not appeared in this appeal.2. The sale-deed alleges necessity in that the money was required for the education of the son of the vendor, who was the mother of the plaintiff, and for the marriage of her daughter. The learned Judge held that these grounds, of necessity were not proved. The learned Judge refers to a good many discrepancies in the evidence, to which I attach considerably less importance than he did. The sale took place in 1915, ...
Tag this Judgment!Mahadev Heramb Dev Vs. Govindrao Krishnarao Kale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom124; (1936)38BOMLR1137
Broomfield, J.1. This is a batch of civil applications relating to the Chinch-wad Sansthan. The history of this institution is given in Chintaman Bajaji Dev v. Dhondo Ganesh Dev I.L.R. (1888) Bom. 612 In consequence of the decree of this Court in that case, a scheme of management was drawn up, which with some modifications made in 1896 is still in force. It vested the management of the institution in a committee of three trustees,-one representing the eldest branch of the family of the founder, one selected from among members of that family generally, and the third representing the general body of worshippers. All three of the trustees are nominated by the District Judge, Poona.2. Clause 4 of the scheme, which is the most important for our present purpose, is in these terms:-The said trustees shall hold office for life, but it shall be competent to the District Judge of his own motion or upon the application or representation of any person interested in the said Devasthan to remove fro...
Tag this Judgment!Attygalle Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR700
Chancellor, J.1. This is a case which has given their Lordships a considerable trouble. The prosecution was against the first accused for performing an illegal operation, and against the second accused for abetting him in that crime.2. At the trial the learned Judge gave a direction to the jury, to which exception has been taken by Mr. de Silva in a very clear and helpful argument, and in which the learned Judge explained to the jury his view as to the burden of proof based upon his construction of Section 106 of Ordinance No. 14 of 1895 in the Ceylon Code. That section enacts that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. With reference to that section the learned Judge told the jury that :There is a section which is really the basis of circumstantial evidence so far as it occurs in Ceylon; that section says when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Mis...
Tag this Judgment!Harilal Chhotalal Shah Vs. Chaturbhai Punjabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-26-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom399; (1936)38BOMLR938; 165Ind.Cas.604
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order in darkhast proceedings made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nadiad. The plaintiffs obtained a judgment against the respondents or their predecessors-in-title for the sum of eleven thousand odd rupees. They obtained that judgment on September 23, 1930. In 1933 they filed the present darkhast asking for sale of certain immoveable property of the debtors, and an interim receiver until sale. At the hearing they asked for the appointment of a receiver by way of execution as an alternative to an order for sale. The learned Judge held that certain of the lands sought to be attached were unrecognised sub-divisions of a bhag, and therefore were not attachable under the Bhagdari and Narwa-dari Act (Bom. V of 1862), and he held that in respect of land which was not attachable under the Act, the Court could not appoint a receiver. I agree with the learned Judge's finding that the lands in question are unrecognised sub-divisions...
Tag this Judgment!Manubhai Chunilal Vs. the General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Cor ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom363; (1936)38BOMLR632; 165Ind.Cas.672
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr, Justice Black-well. The plaintiffs are suing the defendants as the sureties upon an administration bond, and the learned Judge dismissed the suit on a preliminary issue of limitation.2. The facts are not in dispute. On October 21, 1920, one Chunilal Motilal died intestate, leaving two minor sons, who are the plaintiffs. On July 14, 1921, leave was given to Nathalal Motilal to apply for letters of administration. On November 24, 1921, the said Nathalal Motilal, and the defendants, as sureties, entered into a bond, which is exhibit A, for payment to Pheroz Behramji Malabari, Registrar of this Court in its Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, and William J. Howard, acting Assistant Prothonotary, their executors, administrators and assigns of the penal sum of Rs. 1,76,682, which was double the value at which the estate was sworn. The conditions of the bond which was in the usual form, were, first, that Nathalal Motilal...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Saroobai Vs. HusseIn Somji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom330; (1936)38BOMLR903; 165Ind.Cas.34
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice B. J. Wadia given on an originating summons. The summons raised first the question whether on the true construction of a deed of settlement dated November 10, 1930, made by one Fatmabai, the plaintiff has become absolutely entitled to the property at Kambekar Street mentioned in the plaint herein from and after the death of the settlor. The learned Judge answered that question in the negative. The other questions are merely consequential. Mr. Taraporewala for the appellant desired to amend the question by asking who were entitled, and in what shares and for what interests, to the property referred to in the question. I think that we shall have to enlarge the question to some extent, because, if respondent No. 1, who is the trustee of the settlement, is merely told that the plaintiff has not become absolutely entitled to the property, he is left in doubt as to whom he ought to pay over the rents and profits. I t...
Tag this Judgment!Jagannath Fakirchand Vs. Shivnarayan Ramlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom19; (1936)38BOMLR1023; 166Ind.Cas.961
N.J. Wadia, J.1. These are cross-appeals arising out of an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona, in darkhast No. 1842 of 1932. Appeal No. 218 has been filed by the judgment-debtor and Appeal No. 220 by the decree-holder.2. A dispute with regard to some dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant was referred to arbitration. An award was made by which the defendant was to pay Rs. 23,000 and interest by instalments. There was a default clause under which, besides the personal liability of the defendant, a charge was laid on some immoveable property of his in the Baramati taluka of the Poona District. The award was filed in the Ahmednagar Court and a decree was passed by that Court. There was a default in payment and the plaintiff got the decree transferred for execution to the Poona Court and filed an application for execution in that Court asking for the recovery of the money by attachment and sale of the property in the Poona District on which a charge had been...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Vs. Prabhakardixit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR853; 165Ind.Cas.987
Broomfield, J. 1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of property which originally belonged to one Appadixit Kashinathdixit, together with mesne profits. Appadixit died without issue in 1865. He left a widow Shivubai who in 1877 transferred the property by a registered-deed to Bhaudixit, a cousin of her husband. Bhaudixit at the same time agreed to pay her maintenance as long as she lived. In 1900 she adopted a son named Ishwardixit, and the latter in 1902 brought a suit (No. 563 of 1902) in the Soundatti Court against Bhaudixit to recover possession of the property. The trial Court and the Court of first appeal allowed the plaintiff's claim, rejecting the defences of Bhaudixit that the adoption was not proved and was not valid, and that the suit was barred by adverse possession. In second appeal, however, it was held by this Court in Bhaudixit v. Ishwardixit (1905) S.A. No. 146 of 1905 decided by Russeel and Batty, JJ. on August 16, and September 20, 1905 (Unrep.) that the...
Tag this Judgment!Annappa Ramchandra Pai Vs. Krishna Narayan Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom412; (1936)38BOMLR808; 165Ind.Cas.1001
Broomfield, J.1. In the suit from which these appeals arise the plaintiffs are the managers of a temple called Shri Mahableshwar of Gokarn. Defendants Nos. 1 to 5 are members of a committee called the Kumta Dharma-dav Committee and as such they hold and manage a fund called ' Dharma-dav Fund ', which is collected for the benefit of a number of religious and charitable institutions in the neighbourhood of Kumta. Part of this fund has been set apart for the benefit of the Shri Mahableshwar temple and some land has been purchased out of this part of the fund. The plaintiffs brought the suit alleging that the defendants are the trustees of the fund, and that they have been guilty of a breach of trust. The reliefs prayed for are possession of the land purchased out of the fund and recovery of the rest of the amount due to the temple after taking accounts of the fund from the beginning.2. The trial Court has made a preliminary decree awarding the plaintiffs possession of the land with mesne ...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Chunilal Choksi Vs. Kanchanlal Manchharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom353; (1936)38BOMLR754; 165Ind.Cas.954
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal in a suit filed by the respondents which was described as an administration suit and has been held to be such by the trial Court, the First Class Subordinate Judge of Surat. A preliminary decree has been passed, presumably under Order XX, Rule 13, directing inquiries to be made and accounts taken.2. An objection has been taken by the respondents that the appeal lies to the District Court, Surat, and not to the High Court. We are of opinion that this objection must be sustained.3. The allegations in the plaint are as follows. One Pranjivandas Bijvallabh-das died at Surat, on February 4, 1930; plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and the defendants are the executors of a will made by him on August 10, 1927; and plaintiffs Nos. 3 to 6, 8 and 9 are the daughters of the deceased and plaintiff No. 7 is the son of plaintiff No. 6. The deceased left immovable and movable property of considerable value which is described and valued so far as the information of the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »