Mumbai Court August 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.
Dattatraya Sitaram Kulkarni Vs. Shankar Mahadji Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1936
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR118
Rangnekar, J.1. These are two cross appeals. The question in second appeal No. 841 is, whether certain Sheri lands, which were included in the suit by the plaintiffs as being part of the joint family property, were joint family property in which the plaintiffs had a share. The trial Court accepted the plaintiffs' claim, but the Appellate Court rejected it. Unfortunately, the judgment of the Appellate Court is somewhat meagre and does not clearly deal with the contentions raised by the parties.2. The family pedigree is set out at p. 15 of the record. Laxman was the common ancestor. He had four sons. The plaintiffs claimed through the second son, Sitaram; and the contesting defendants claimed through the third son, Mahadji. Now, it is common ground that, among others, Laxman was in possession of certain Sheri lands as a lessee from Government. There is nothing to show when this lease terminated, though the presumption seems to be that in 1883 the period of the lease had come to an end. I...
Dattatraya Sitaram Kulkarni and ors. Vs. Shankar Mahadji Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-18-1936
Reported in: AIR1938Bom250
Rangnekar, J.1. These are two cross appeals. The question in Second Appeal No. 841 is, whether certain Sheri lands which were included, in the suit by the plaintiffs as being part of the joint family property, were joint family property in which the plaintiffs had a share. The trial Court accepted the plaintiffs' claim, but the Appellate Court rejected it. Unfortunately the judgment of the Appellate Court is somewhat meagre and does not clearly deal with the contentions raised by the parties.2. The family pedigree is set out at p. 15 of the record. Laxman was the common ancestor. He had four sons. The plaintiffs claimed through the second son, Sitaram; and the contesting defendants claimed through the third son, Mahadji. Now, it is common ground that, among others, Laxman was in possession of certain Sheri lands as a lessee from Government. There is nothing to show when this lease terminated, though the presumption seems to be that in 1883 the period of the lease had come to an end. It...
The Dharwar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Ramchandra Govindrao Alna ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom231; (1937)39BOMLR249
Sen, J.1. These are two appeals against the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar in Special Suit No. 104 of 1929.2. The facts in this case are as follows : In 1899 there appears to have been a partition in the family of the plaintiffs wherein Shitabai, the mother of Govindrao, plaintiffs father, got gold ornaments weighing 166-10-0 tolas of gold as stridhan. Later on as the plaintiffs' father Govindrao made use of these ornaments in the course of his business, he sold to his mother Shitabai the suit property and certain lands on February 26, 1916. This property was declared as belonging to Shitabai in suit No. 639 of 1920. Govindrao, however, had to apply in insolvency in 1916, his debts amounting to Rs. 17,000 to Rs. 18,000. In 1917 Shitabai passed a will in favour of her grandsons, the plaintiffs, to whom she bequeathed all her moveable and immovea'ble property. In the insolvency case Govindrao arrived at an understanding with his creditors, and on December 2, 1919,...
Mallappa Basvantrao Desai Vs. Tukko Narasinha Mutalik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1936
Reported in: (1937)39BOMLR288
Broomfield, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by respondents Nos. 1 to 8 as plaintiffs against the Desai of Rudrapur as defendant No. 1 and the Secretary of State, for a declaration that they are watandars of the same watan as defendant No. 1, for recovery of watan lands which were taken from their possession and handed over to the possession of defendant No. 1 by orders of the revenue authorities in January, 1926, and for mesne profits. The suit has been decreed, and defendant No. 1 has appealed.2. The suit lands which are situated in Budikop in Murgod Mahal of the Belgaum District form part of a Nadgoudki watan inam granted to the ancestor of defendant No. 1 in 1694, It is the plaintiffs' case that they were granted in pot inam to their ancestor Tukadev some time prior to 1818, that is before the introduction of the British rule in Murgod Mahal, which took place in 1827 or 1828. The plaintiffs claim to have been in possession ever since that time until evicted b...
Mallappa Basvantrao Desai Vs. Tukko Narasinha Mutalik and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom307
Broomfield, J.1. The suit from which this appeal arises was brought by respondents 1 to 8 as plaintiffs against the Desai of Rudrapur as defendant 1 and the Secretary of State, for a declaration that they are watandars of the same watan as defendant 1, for recovery of watan lands which were taken from their possession and handed over to the possession of defendant 1 by orders of the revenue authorities in January 1926, and for mesne profits. The suit has been decreed, and defendant 1 has appealed.2. The suit lands which are situated in Budikop in Murgod Mahal of the Belgaum District form part of a Nadgoudki watan inam granted to the ancestor of defendant 1 in 1694. It is the plaintiffs' case that they were granted in pot inam to their ancestor Tukadev some time prior to 1818, that is before the introduction of the British Rule in Murgod Mahal, which took place in 1827 or 1828. The plaintiffs claim to have been in possession ever since that time until evicted by the revenue authorities....
Emperor Vs. Dattatraya Malhar Bidkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom28; (1936)38BOMLR1115; 166Ind.Cas.263
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the Sessions Judge of Nasik recommending that this Court should set aside the conviction of a man named Dattatraya Malhar Ilidkar, who was convicted under Section 12 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, Act XXV of 1867, and fined Rs. 5. The learned Sessions Judge thinks that the conviction was not justified in law. What the accused person did was to distribute in the streets printed handbills in the form of exhibit 3, giving notice of two meetings of agriculturists which were to be held in order to support certain resolutions being brought up in the Bombay Legislative Council, and it is suggested, and the learned Magistrate so held, that in so doing he was guilty of an offence under Section 12 of the Act inasmuch as the handbills did not comply with Section 3.2. Two points arise on the reference, first, whether exhibit 3 is a paper printed within the meaning of that expression in Section 3 of the Act, and, secondly, if it is...
Emperor Vs. Laxman Jairam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom31; (1936)38BOMLR1122; 166Ind.Cas.569
1. [ His Lordship first dealt with the case of Soni and treating her confession as evidence against her confirmed the conviction and sentence passed upon her. The judgment next proceeded to deal with the case of Laxman thus :] The case of accused No. 2 is on a different footing altogether. There is, so far as I can see, practically no corroboration of the story told in the confession of Soni as against Laxman. Two witnesses were called who said that they saw Laxman on the night of January 25 in the neighbourhood of Sakora, but their evidence was not relied on by the Public Prosecutor, and was disbelieved by the learned Sessions Judge. There is no evidence whatever that Laxman wrote this pseudonymous' letter. He is, as are all the parties, illiterate, and somebody must have got the letter written, but we have no evidence whatever to show who it was who got the letter written, or, if it was got written by Laxman, how he managed to get it posted at Manmad, whence it is alleged to have com...
Emperor Vs. Khanmahomed Shermahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom96; (1936)38BOMLR1111
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the District Magistrate, Bombay Suburban District, inviting us to enhance the sentence passed upon the accused, who is convicted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 150, in default, three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The facts are that the accused was driving a motor lorry on October 22, 1935, along the Ghodbunder Road from Andheri to Malad. At the same time, a private motor car was coming from Malad towards Andheri on the proper side of the road. There was a bullock cart going in the same direction as the accused's lorry, and with a view to passing the bullock cart the accused swerved on to the right-hand side of the road. His own case is, that owing to another lorry in front of him, which had just passed the bullock cart, he was not able to see whether the road was clear, and he did not see the approaching car. If he was not able to see that the road was clear, he had, of course,...
Govindbhai Lallubhai Patel Vs. Dahyabhai Nathabhai Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1936Bom201; (1937)39BOMLR332
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council by the unsuccessful plaintiff in First Appeal No. 31 of 1932. The main question is whether the property is of the appealable value. The plaintiff claimed to be the owner of immoveable properties in the Narwadari village of Ode in the Anand Taluka, under the will of one Desaibhai. In the first instance he filed his suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, Umreth, claiming a declaration that he is the owner of various properties specified in the plaint, an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession, possession of specified properties from the defendants, one-third share in certain properties sold by the defendants and Rs. 2,400 for mesne profits for three years of the properties in the possession of the defendants. The suit was valued as follows : Rs. 130 for the declaration and injunction, Rs. 333 for plaintiff's share in the price of the properties sold, Rs. ...
Govindbhai Lallubhai Patel Vs. Dahyabhai Nathabhai Patel and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1936
Reported in: AIR1937Bom326
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council by the unsuccessful plaintiff in First Appeal No. 31 of 1932. The Main question is whether the property is of the appealable value. The ptantiff Claimed to the owner of immoveable properties in the Narwadari village of Ode in the Anand Taluka, under the will of one Desaibhai. In the first instance he filed his suit in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, Umreth, claiming a declaration that he is the owner of various properties specified in the plaint, an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession, possession of specified properties from the defendants, one-third share in certain properties sold by the defendants and Rs. 2,400 for mesne profits for three years of the properties in the possession of the defendants. The suit was valued as follows: Rs. 130 for the declaration and injunction, Rs. 333 for plaintiff's share in. the price of the properties sold, Rs. 2,40...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »