Mumbai Court July 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.
Hari Bapuji Patankar Vs. Bhagu Sadu Birje
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1200
Wassoodew, J.1. The appellant Hari Bapuji Patankar agreed on March 2, 1927, to purchase some fields situate at Mouje Zadgaon in the town of Ratnagiri from one Bhagu, wife of Sadu, for a sum of Rs. 700 out of which Rs. 650 were paid to the seller at the date of the contract. The conveyance was not executed, and possession was not delivered by Bhagu. That forced Hari (the appellant) to file a suit for specific performance which he did on March 18, 1930. In that suit a decree was passed on October 27, 1930, as follows:-'Defendant (Bhagu) do pay to the plaintiff the sum of Rs. 650 and the costs of the suit in April, 1931. The decretal amount is to be a charge on the property (which had been) agreed to be sold.' Before that decree, Siraj Murtuja, the respondent in this appeal, had obtained a decree for money on November IS, 1925, against the seller Bhagu. He filed execution proceedings in 1930 (Darkhast No. 243 of 1930), and obtained attachment of the property, the subject-matter of the agr...
Khangouda Shivangouda Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom121; (1936)38BOMLR1308
Broomfield, J.1. The plaintiff has appealed against the dismissal of his suit, against the Secretary of State for India and other defendants, for a declaration of his title to and for possession of patilki watan lands in the village of Hulgur.2. The material facts are these. Fakirgouda, the former holder of the watan, died in about 1877 leaving three widows, Fakirawwa, Shanavirawwa and Savakka. The last of these gave birth to a posthumous son Fakirgouda, who however died shortly after his birth. After his death Fakirawwa made two adoptions. She adopted one Chanaviragouda in 1901 and the plaintiff in 1908. The plaintiff was put in possession of the property of Fakirgouda and the Revenue authorities recognised his adoption and entered his name in place of Fakirgouda as one of the representative watandars. That happened in 1909. In 1920 Chanaviragouda brought a suit against the plaintiff claiming the property as the adopted son of Fakirgouda. An issue was raised in that suit as to the fac...
Parshram Shivajiram Vs. Gulabsing Fattesing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom113; (1936)38BOMLR1306
Broomfield, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit on a promissory-note executed on September 24, 1927, by one Fattesing Gumansing, the Chieftain of Gangtha, who died in 1929. His estate passed to his son Gulabsing and was taken over by the Court of Wards under a notification of January 30, 1930. The suit was brought on September 24, 1930, and has been dismissed as barred by Section 31 of the Court of Wards Act (Bom. Act I of 1905). That section is as follows :-No suit relating to the person or property of any Government ward shall be brought in any Civil Court until the expiration of two months after notice in writing stating the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff, the cause of action and the relief claimed, has been delivered to, or left at the office of, the Court of Wards; and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left.2. There is a proviso which does not apply in the present case.3. It is admitted that the notice required by ...
Ganesh Chunder Dhur Vs. Lal Behary Dhur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1250
Thankerton, J.1. This appeal raises a question as to the validity of the provisions for the shebaitship of certain Hindu idols made by the will of Lukey Narain Dhur, who was a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga School of Hindu law, and who died on March 26, 1927. The following genealogical table will show the relationship of the parties :- Luckey Narain Dhur - Kadammoni Dasi|--------------------------------------------------| | |Kartik Ganesh (appellant) Ram | | |Netye Madan ||--------------------------------------------------------| | | |Lal Behary Bon Behary Rash Behary Banku Behary2. The testator was survived by his widow and by his three sons.3. The material clauses of the will, which was made and published on November 18, 1923, and under which his sons Kartick and Ram were appointed executors, are as follows :-9. Subject to the payments aforesaid I give the rest and residue of my estate unto my executors and trustees upon trust to pay the balance of the income of my said estate to th...
Binda Kuer Vs. Lalita Prasad Choudhary
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1256
George Rankin, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals brought by the plaintiffs whose suit was decreed by the Subordinate Judge of Muzaffarpur on August 16, 1928, but was dismissed by two decrees of the High Court of Patna on December 14, 1932.2. The plaintiffs claimed declaration of their title to, and a decree for possession of, a half share of the properties referred to in the plaint as having belonged to one Bajrangi Lal, who died in 1861, and whose widow, Musammat Amola Kuer died in 1916. The plaintiffs' case was that they, together with defendant No. 63, were entitled to half, and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the husband of defendant No. 3 were entitled to the other half. A number of other persons were impleaded as purchasers from the widow of different items of her husband's property, but both Courts in India have negatived the pleas of legal necessity and the purchaser respondents can make no higher case than those respondents who are members of the family. Their Lordships...
Sardar Vinayakrao Dhundiraj Biwalkar Vs. the Secretary of State for In ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1265
Roche, J.1. This suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the District Court at Thana against the Secretary of State for India in Council for a declaration that he is the inamdar and owner of the soil and has full proprietary rights in the suit lands, and for possession and mesne profits. The District Judge dismissed the suit as to merits and for want of jurisdiction-He also thought that the suit was barred by limitation of time. The judgment of the Bombay High Court affirmed his decision as to merits and dismissed the appeal without deciding the questions of jurisdiction or limitation.2. The plaintiff claims under grants made to his ancestor Vinayak in the earlier part of last century by Raghoji Angria, the Ruler of the Kolaba State, which had formed part of the territories extending from Bombay to' Goa over which the notorious Kanoji Angria established his rule in 1713. For more than forty years he and his descendants carried on a piratical war against shipping in the Indian Ocean unt...
Narayan Ramchandra Ambure Vs. Dhondiba Tukaram Gavali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1303
Rangnekar, J.1. [His Lordship after setting out the facts proceeded :] Two points are taken by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant. The first is that there being a reference to arbitration by the parties and accepted by the Court, upon the terms of that reference, the Court was constituted as an umpire in the event of the arbitrators failing to agree. Therefore the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Sholapur was a decision of an umpire and no appeal from it was competent to the District Court. The second point is with regard to the merits of the case.2. Now it is clear from Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code that save in so far as is otherwise provided by the Indian Arbitration Act, 1899, or by any other law for the time being in force, all references to arbitration, whether by an order in a suit or otherwise, and all proceedings thereunder, shall be governed by the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to the Code. It is not argued that this reference is...
Stephen Seneviratne Vs. the King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR1
Roche, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a verdict and sentence given and passed in the Supreme Court of the Island of Ceylon on June 14, 1934. The appellant was charged with having murdered his wife on October 15, 1933, and after a trial lasting twenty-one days he was found guilty by a majority of five to two of the jury, one of the five in the majority recommending him to mercy. Sentence of death was passed but this sentence was commuted to one of rigorous imprisonment for life.2. The main ground of the appeal is that on the evidence a verdict of guilty could not properly or safely be found and that the jury ought to have been so directed and that in these circumstances such grave injustice had been done as to require the interference of His Majesty. The appellant also complained of certain specific matters in the conduct of the trial as causing or contributing to the miscarriage of justice. Such matters were: that a very large amount of hearsay evidence was admitted and w...
Emperor Vs. Marshal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom80
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate, Bombay Suburban District, asking us to enhance the sentence of four months rigorous imprisonment passed upon the accused for an offence under Section 304-A, I.P.C., that is for causing death by a rash and negligent act.2. Having gone through the record, I think there is no doubt as to what happened. The accused was driving a car from a wedding party. He had four passengers at the back and two in the front, which was two more than the car was properly capable of holding. He started from the party some distance behind another car which was driven by a man named Nasservanji, and on the Ghodbunder road the accused, desired to pass Nasservanji's car. The evidence is that the road is a straight road thirty-four feet wide and therefore there should have been no difficulty whatever in passing another car even at considerable speed. It is not suggested that there was any obstruction on the road at the time. However, according to t...
Raja K. Venkata Hanumantha Bhushana Rao Vs. Gade Subbayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1936
Reported in: (1936)38BOMLR1229
Shadi Lal, J.1. These consolidated appeals arise out of a suit brought to recover money on a mortgage by a sale of the mortgaged property. The mortgage deed was executed on July 13, 1911, in favour of one Nagabhushanam, the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff, by a Hindu widow Seshamma, who had inherited her husband's property for a widow's estate.2. The trial Judge dismissed the suit, but on appeal the High Court at Madras has decreed the claim, but has disallowed compound interest on the ground that the stipulation for the payment of compound interest at an enhanced rate was in the nature of a penalty.3. Both the parties have appealed to His Majesty in Council, and after considering the arguments advanced on their behalf, their Lordships are of opinion that there is no substance in either of the appeals.4. The relevant facts may be shortly stated. The indebtedness of the widow Seshamma commenced in January, 1883, when she entered into a compromise with the mortgagee in order to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »