Mumbai Court April 1936 Judgments
Rajah Kocherlocota Venkata Jagannath Rao Garu Vs. Maharajah Ravu Venka ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR760
Shadi Lal, J.1. The circumstances, which led to the action giving rise to these consolidated appeals brought by both the parties, may be shortly stated. One Krishna Rao, the late Zamindar of Polavaram in the Madras Presidency, borrowed, on different dates, from the Maharajah of Pittapur (to be described hereinafter as the plaintiff) large sums of money; and secured the payment thereof by executing three successive mortgages of his estate in favour of the creditor. The last of these mortgages was granted on October 22, 1913, as a security for a loan of more than three lakhs of rupees; and it was on the strength of this mortgage that the plaintiff instituted, after the death of the mortgagor, a suit for the recovery of the debt, impleading as defendant the mortgagor's widow. She subsequently adopted a minor boy, Jagannatha Rao, as a son to her deceased husband, and the adopted son was then added as a defendant (to be referred to hereinafter as the defendant). The suit resulted in a decre...
Tag this Judgment!Gopi Krishna Kasaudhan Vs. Jaggo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR751
Shadi Lal, J.1. This appeal raises a question which has an important bearing upon the law of marriage governing the Hindu community. It arises out of a dispute relating to the estate of one Nikku Lal, who died in July, 1923. Nikku Lal was a member of the Vaishya caste of Gorakhpur in the United Provinces of India, and followed the Mitakshara school of the Hindu law.2. The plaintiff Gopi Krishna, who is the appellant before their Lordships, is admittedly Nikku Lal's legitimate son; and his right to a moiety of the estate is no longer in dispute. He, however, claims the entire estate on the ground that the defendant, Sri Kishan, is not a legitimate son of Nikku Lal, and, therefore, has no interest in the property left by him.3. That Sri Kishan was born of a woman called Jaggo is not disputed, but the question is whether she was, at that time, a lawfully wedded wife of Nikku Lal. It appears that she was originally married to one Baijnath, while she was a minor; and that, after his death, ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vishnu Joshi Vs. Ramabai Govind Gadre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR165
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition dated January 9, 1934, for probate of a will alleged to have been executed by one Govind Mahadeo Gadre on July 30, 1894. The petition was opposed by opponents Nos. 4 and 5, the sons of the nephew of the alleged testator, named Martand and Janardhan. Their father was Trimbak whose father was Balkrishna, the brother of Govind, the alleged testator. I shall refer to opponents Nos. 4 and 5 as the opponents. The grounds for opposition to the grant of probate were, first, that no such document as was relied upon by the petitioner had ever been executed by Govind; secondly, that if executed at all, it was executed when Govind was not in a sound disposing mind; thirdly, that, in any case, the original document not having been produced, there was no admissible and sufficient secondary evidence to determine what the terms of the document were; fourthly, that assuming that there was such a document executed in the terms alleged and that there was ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Vishnu Joshi Vs. Ramabai Govind Gadre and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-16-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom341
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a petition dated 9th January 1934 for probate of a will alleged to have been executed by one Govind Mahadeo Gadre on 30th July 1894. The petition -was opposed by opponents 4 and 5, the sons of the nephew of the alleged testator, named Martand and Janardhan. Their father was Trimbak, whose father was Balkrishna, the brother of Govind, the alleged testator. I shall refer to opponents 4 and 5 as the opponents. The grounds for opposition to the grant of probate were, first, that no such document as was relied upon by the petitioner had ever been executed by Govind; secondly, that if executed at all, it was executed when Govind was not in a sound disposing mind; thirdly, that, in any case, the original document not having been produced, there was no admissible and sufficient secondary evidence to determine what the terms of the document were; fourthly, that assuming that there was such a document executed in the terms alleged, and that there was suffic...
Tag this Judgment!Nawab Major Sir Mohammad Akbar Khan Vs. Attar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR739
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, N. W. Frontier Province, allowing an appeal from the Subordinate Judge of Mardan, who had made a decree in favour of (the plaintiff. By the decree on appeal the plaintiff's suit was dismissed with] costs.2. The suit was commenced by a plaint dated July 25, 1929, based upon a deposit receipt dated April 1, 1917, to recover the principal sum of Rs. 43,900 said to have been deposited with the defendants on deposit account with interest at the agreed rate of five and a quarter per cent, per annum. The alleged deposit receipt bore only an affixed stamp of one anna, and the Subordinate Judge in framing the issues stated as the first issue the question whether the document fell within the definition of a promissory note and was it therefore not admissible in evidence. Without hearing any evidence as to the circumstances in which the document came into existence he decided this issue as a preliminary point...
Tag this Judgment!Shiva NaraIn Jafa Vs. the Judges of the Allahabad High Court
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR731
Shadi Lal, J.1. This appeal has been brought by an advocate of the High j Court of Judicature at Allahabad from a judgment of that Court convicting him of professional misconduct and suspending him from practice for a period of three months.2. The appellant, Mr. Shiva Narain Jafa, was practising as an advocate at Budaun, a district situated in the United Provinces of India; and in the beginning of 1927 he was engaged to defend a suit instituted by one Bhagwant Singh, against two brothers, Bhau Singh and Lachhman Singh. On January 22, 1927, he filed in the Court of the District Judge, who was hearing the case, a vakalatnama (power-of-attorney) signed by both the defendants. It appears that they were, at that time, undergoing imprisonment for certain offences, of which they had been convicted; and the appellant, who had been paid only a portion of his fee, submitted on March 8, 1927, an application to the District Judge in these terms :-In the above case it is submitted that I have been ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›