Mumbai Court December 1937 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.
Mahant Har Kishen Das Vs. Satgur Prasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR760
George Rankin, J.1. This consolidated appeal arises out of execution proceedings in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Bahraich to enforce a certain provision in a decree made on November 28, 1927, by a Judge of the Chief Court of Oudh in its original jurisdiction. This decree had been modified as a result of appeals to that Court in its appellate jurisdiction and to His Majesty in Council. The decree of the appellate bench is dated May 2, 1928, and the judgment of the Board was delivered on January 18, 1932 L.R. 59 IndAp 147, The suit in which the decree was passed was brought on February 21, 1927, by Mahant Har Narain Das (in this judgment referred to as Narain Das) against the present respondent, whom their Lordships will refer to as Satgur. Prasad, and two other persons. The plaintiff's case in outline was as follows :-For many years there had existed in the city of Lucknow a sangat or Udasi shrine to the mahant of which valuable taluqdari property and certain other property mov...
Manmohan Das Vs. Baldeo NaraIn Tandon
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR752
Shadi Lal, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Baldeo Narain Tandon (hereinafter referred to as Tandon) against a firm called the United Provinces Aniline Dyes Company (described as ' the firm ' for convenience) for the recovery of Rs. 14,950 with interest. The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dissenting from the trial Judge, has granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff; and from that decree Manmohan Das, one of the partners of the firm, has appealed to His Majesty in Council.2. The plaintiff stated that the sum of Rs. 14,950 was advanced by him as a loan to the firm by a cheque for that amount. The cheque in question was drawn by the Secretary of the Finance Board of the Congress Reception Committee, Amritsar, on August 12, 1923, in favour of another firm called Bend Brothers for the price of the work done by them for the Reception Committee. It was endorsed by two of the partners of Bond Brothers, namely, Tandon and Banerji, in favour of one Sri Ki...
Altaf HussaIn Vs. Ale Rasul Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR755
Shadi Lal, J.1. The dispute in this case relates to the distribution of the offerings made by the pilgrims to the tomb of Khwaja Moinuddin Chisti at Ajmer. The tomb in question, generally known as Durgah Khwaja Sahib, Ajmeir, has, for centuries past, been a place of pilgrimage for devout Moslems; and the presents made by the pilgrims to the durgah have led to frequent disputes between the sajjadanashin (called diwan sahib) on the one side, and the khadims (servitors) on the other side. The sajjadanashin is a descendant of the saint, while the khadims are the descendants of the original disciples of the saint.2. In September, 1912, diwan Sharfuddin, the predecessor of the present sajjadanashin, granted to the khadims, a perpetual lease of the sajjadanashin's share of the offerings made at the shrine for Rs. 500 a year. For about ten years there was no controversy between the sajjadanashin and the khadims about the division of the offerings. In 1922 diwan Sharfuddin died and was succeede...
Lala Atma Ram Vs. Thakur Sadhu Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR742
Shadi Lal, J.1. On May 12, 1931, two brothers, Agar Singh and Nandlal Singh, who were proprietors of a one-third share in the village Bajika, situated in Tahsil Sirsa of the Hissar district, entered into an agreement with the appellant, Rai Sahib Lala Atma Ram, to sell the whole of their estate in that village to him for Rs. 52,000. In the deed of agreement they set out the reasons for selling the land in these terms :-We are unable to manage the cultivation work of the estate. Besides we owe debts, interest whereupon is swelling day by day. The revenue of the estate is also due from us. There is no other alternative but to sell the estate for payment of the debts and the revenue.2. As they were members of an agricultural tribe notified under a special statute called the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, XIII of 1900, and the proposed vendee Rai Sahib Lala Atma Ram was not a member of an agricultural tribe, they could not sell the land to him without obtaining the sanction of the Deputy C...
Anurago Kuer Vs. Darshan Raut
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR758
Shadi Lal, J.1. On August 23, 1915, three persons, namely, Mahesh, his son Rijhawan and his nephew Inderdeo, granted a muquarrari (permanent lease at a fixed rent) of a plot of land measuring about forty bighas, situated in Telhara in the district of Motihari, to one Ganesh Raut. The plaintiff, Musam-mat Anurago Kuer, who is the widow of one Sitaram, a brother of Mahesh's father Kesho, laid claim to a moiety of the land on the ground that it belonged to her husband, and that on his death it devolved upon her and her co-widow Rajo Kuer. The latter widow died in 1923, with the result that the plaintiff became the sole owner of her husband's estate. On August 22, 1927, a day before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation, she brought the present suit for the recovery of her husband's share of the land against the lessee, who died during the pendency of the suit and is now represented by his successors in interest. The lessors also were impleaded as defendants, but they have not ...
Bengal Nagpur Railway Company Limited Vs. Ruttanji Ramji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR746
Shadi Lal, J. 1. These consolidated appeals arise out of an action brought by the plaintiffs to recover, from the Bengal Nagpur Railway Company, Limited, (hereinafter referred to as 'the railway'), a certain sum of money on account of the price of the work done by them for the railway. The circumstances which have led to the litigation may be shortly stated.2. On March 31, 1920, one Ramji Madhoji, (described hereinafter as the contractor), the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs, entered into three contracts with the railway for doing earth work, bridge work and miscellaneous work respectively, in the construction of a branch railway line known as the Amda Jamda branch. The terms of each contract, which were embodied in a document variously described as schedule of works or schedule of rates, prescribed, inter alia, the rates at which payments were to be made to the contractor for various items of work to be done by him.3. In May, 1920, the contractor commenced work in the sectio...
Waman Mahadeo Apte Vs. Janardan Balvant Risbud
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom357; (1938)40BOMLR545
Rangnekar, J.1. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to enforce his, mortgage over defendant No. 1's house in Poona, and the main question that falls to be determined is, whether, as held by the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona, the mortgage of the house in favour of defendant No. 3 is entitled to priority over that in favour of the plaintiff. It may be stated here that the plaintiff also held a mortgage over the house under a deed dated April 8, 1927, about which there is no dispute, nor as to the position of defendant No. 2, whose mortgage was evidently subject to the plaintiff's mortgage.2. By a deed of mortgage dated October 18, 1929, defendant No. 1 mortgaged his property, including a house situate in Poona, to the plaintiff for Rs. 3,500, with interest thereon at nine per cent. On February 1, 1929, defendant No. 1 had entered into an agreement to mortgage the house to defendant No. 3. As the first defendant failed to carry out the agreement, defe...
Bandu Annaji Naik Vs. Yeshwant Ramrao Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom358; (1938)40BOMLR548
Divatia, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 against a decree for possession of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs. The facts shortly are :-The property belonged originally to one Gangaram, whose daughter is plaintiff No. 2. After his death in September, 1909, the property came into the possession of his widow Irawa. The second plaintiff was bom in the same month on September 14, 1909. Irawa re-married in 1912, and after her remarriage she sold the suit property to defendant No. 7 in 1913. In 1918, defendant No. 7 sold it to defendant No. 1, who, along with his brother defendant No. 2, is in possession thereof. In May, 1930, plaintiff No. 2 sold her right to recover the property as areversioner to the first plaintiff, and both the plaintiffs, i.e. the daughter as well as her vendee, have brought the present suit in 1930.2. Plaintiffs' case was that the sale by Irawa to defendant No. 7 and the subsequent sale,to defendant No. 1 were both unauthorise...
(Syed) Sabir HusaIn Vs. S. Farzand Hasan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR735
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is brought by the plaintiffs from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad dated October 31, 1933, affirming a decree of the Subordinate Judge at Moradabad dated January 22, 1930. The appellants are the father and mother of one Musammat Ejaz Fatma, who died on March 19, 1926, aged about twenty-one years. On August 17, 1914, she had been married at the age of nine to the infant son of one Sibti Hasan. The husband's name was Farzand Hasan (defendant No. 1). At the time of the marriage he was only nine or ten years old. The amount of dower agreed upon at the time of the marriage was Rs. 25,000 : it is evidenced by the entry in the register of Ali Husain, the qasi who solemnised the marriage, and is not in dispute. Husband and wife lived together from 1921 till the wife's death in 1926. The appellants by their suit, which was brought on March 16, 1929, after the death of Sibti Hasan, claimed as heirs of Ejaz Fatma, their daughter, entitled between them to a o...
Thakur Gajendra Shah Vs. Thakur Shankar Baksh Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR731
Macmillan, J.1. On April 8, 1923, Harihar Baksh Singh, an infant two years of age, died in right of a taluqdari estate known as Haluapur in the district of Sitapur, Oudh, and certain other real and personal property. Disputes arose as to the succession between Shankar Baksh Singh, the nearest male agnate of the deceased, and Raj Kuar, the deceased's paternal grandmother. These disputes were settled on terms embodied in a deed of arrangement between them, dated March 6, 1925. The question which their Lordships have to determine in the present appeal arises on the interpretation of this deed of arrangement.2. Under the settlement, as set forth in the deed, Raj Kuar was constituted the tenant for life of the villages owned by the deceased (with certain exceptions immaterial for the present purpose), and was expressly precluded from burdening or transferring them. On her death the villages liferented by-Raj Kuar were to become the property of Shankar Baksh Singh (again with certain immater...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »