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.
Sonu Kashiramshet Teli Vs. Shankar Sakharam Sarkhot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom381; (1938)40BOMLR534
Divatia, J.1. This is a defendants' appeal in a suit by the plaintiffs to recover possession of certain lands. Plaintiffs are landlords and their case in substance is that defendants are their annual tenants of the suit lands which are of the Khoti tenure in the Ratnagiri District and that the defendants ancestors had passed rent-notes or kabulayats from 1855 to 1901 admitting their annual tenancy, and they brought the suit after giving notice to the defendants.2. The defendants' contention in their written statement was that they were permanent tenants and not annual tenants of these lands, and therefore the plaintiffs had no right to eject them.3. The material issue framed by the trial Court was, whether the permanent tenancy set up by the defendants was proved. The case was fought in the trial Court on the basis whether the defendants had proved that they were permanent tenants under Section 83 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and it was of opinion that although for the purpose of S...
The Maratha Co-operative Credit Bank of Dharwar Vs. Keshav Trimbak Hun ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom424; (1938)40BOMLR889
Rangnekar, J.1. On June 1, 1923, the appellant obtained an award against the respondent under the provisions of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, for Rs. 809-4-0. He applied to carry out the award in the Dharwar Court on a certificate granted by the Registrar under the provisions of Section 59 of the Act. The application was dismissed by the Court on March 7, 1927. It is common ground that from then until July 17, 1931, he took proceedings before the Mamlatdar under Section 59(1)(b) of the Bombay Co-operative Societies Act to recover the amount due under the award. He was not able torecover anything in these proceedings ; and so, on August 2, 1932, he filed an application for execution again in the Dharwar Court on a fresh certificate granted by the Assistant Registrar on June 25, 1932. The judgment-debtor pleaded that the application was barred by the law of limitation. The plea was accepted, first, by the trial Court and, then, by the District Court, and. it is from these ...
Gillette Industries Limited Vs. Yeshwant Brothers
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom347; (1938)40BOMLR478
Blackwell, J.1. On March 24, 1930, R.E. Thompson applied for a patent in the United Kingdom relating to improvements in safety razor blades of the thin flexible type having external cutting edges and a medial slot and which were intended to be bent transversely and maintained in a position of curvature during use. A patent was granted to him in the United Kingdom on September 24, 1931. The specification and the certificate of the Controller relating to the granting of that patent are exhibit D.2. On May 19, 1930, R. E. Thompson made an application for a similar patent in India, and he claimed the priority date of the United Kingdom patent. On June 4, 1931, a patent was granted to him in India for sixteen years from September 7, 1933, and the certificate of the Controller and the patent-specification are exhibit A.3. On October 23, 1931, the Indian patent was assigned by Thompson to the plaintiffs. The assignment and the certificate of the Controller as to registration thereof are exhib...
Vinayak Vasudeo Mehendale Vs. Gopal Chimnaji Bhate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom377; (1938)40BOMLR525
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 2 in a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that he and defendant No. 3 were duly elected members of the District Local Board's General Constituency of Roha Taluka in the District of Kolaba, and in the alternative for a declaration that the plaintiff alone was the elected member of the said constituency.2. The facts shortly are that the plaintiff and the three defendants were four candidates for two seats in the election which took place on March 14, 1936. On January 21, 1936, which was the date for the nomination of the candidates, all the four persons were duly nominated as candidates. The scrutiny of the nominated members was held on the 27th. At that time the plaintiff objected to; the nomination papers of the first two defendants on the ground that each of them was a member of a joint Hindu family but neither of them was the manager of the family, and that, therefore, both of them were not duly qualified to be voters on the list ...
Radhabai Damodar Shukla Vs. Rajaram Trimbak Shukla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom383; (1938)40BOMLR559
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nasik. The plaintiff sued to obtain a declaration that the adoption of defendant No. 2 made by defendant No. 1 on December 7, 1929, is illegal and void and not binding on him and other reversionary heirs who are in the same category as himself. Admittedly on the arguments on this appeal it may be necessary to extend that declaration by declaring that the adoption, if valid, does not affect the devolution of the property which defendant No. 1 had inherited.2. The material facts are these. One Keshav was the owner of the suit property. He died leaving a widow Bhagirathibai, a son named Dhondiram, a daughter whose existence is not I think material, and the widow of a deceased son, who is defendant No. 1. Dhondiram died in 1899 leaving a widow, Laxmibai, and an infant son who died in 1900, and thereupon the property passed to the mother of the infant son, Laxmibai. Laxmibai died in 1901 an...
Mohanlal Bapalal Shah Vs. the Borough Municipality of Ahmedabad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom370; (1938)40BOMLR552
Broomfield, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decree of the District Judge of Ahmedabad, dismissing a suit brought by the appellant against the Ahmedabad Municipality in the following circumstances :-2. The appellant had a shop at Ahmedabad. On the night of June 20-21, 1929, the adjoining house caught fire and the fire spread to the appellant's house and it was destroyed. There was some dispute at the trial as to the time when the fire broke out, the time of the arrival of the fire engines and the time when water was available to put out the fire. We are not now concerned with these questions.3. The District Judge has found as a fact that there was no delay or negligence on the part of the Municipal servants either in the fire brigade department or in the water supply department. He found, agreeing with the trial Court, that the Municipality was guilty of negligence, but' the negligence consisted in this, that shortly before that time an order had been passed, to prevent waste of wat...
Bhikarchand Devidas Vs. Lachhamandas Bansilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom392; (1938)40BOMLR521
Rangnekar, J.1. The appellants, who are brothers, brought a suit in forma pauperis for a declaration that a sale effected during their minority by their mother as their guardian was not binding on them, and to recover possession of the property. The first defendant is the purchaser from the mother, and the other defendants are subsequent alienees from him. The defendants contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by limitation inasmuch as it was filed more than three years after plaintiff No. 1 had attained majority. The learned Judge, therefore, raised two preliminary issues, one as regards the age of plaintiff No. 1, and the other as regards limitation. He found that plaintiff No. 1 was more than twenty-one years of age when the application to sue in forma pauperis was filed. On the second question, relying on the decision in Bapu Tatya v. Bala Rovji I.L.R. (1920) Bom. 446 : 22 Bom. L.R. 1383. he held that the suit was barred by limitation.2. The sale was effect...
Sunder Singh-mallah Singh, Sanatan Dharam High School Trust Vs. Managi ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR724
Thankerton, J. 1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated May 31, 1934, which reversed a decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Kangra, at Dharamsala, dated December 19, 1927.2. The respondents, the Managing Committee, Sunder Singh-Mallah Singh Rajput High School, hereinafter referred to as ' the committee,' filed the suit through Kharak Singh, member of the committee and manager of the school, and Chaudri Ram Singh, a member of the committee, on November 8, 1926, and impleaded as defendants Sunder Singh-Mallah Singh Sanatan Dharam Rajput High School Trust, hereinafter referred to as 'the trust,' through ten named trustees, of whom Rai Bahadur Chaudri Mallah Singh was the first named.3. In the plaint the respondents claimed (a) a declaration to the effect that 'the plaintiff-committee is the managing body, trustee and administrator of Sunder Singh-Mallah Singh Rajput High School, Indaura, that the defendants have no connection whatsoever with t...
Shantaya Kotraya Bannadnula Vs. Mallappa Basappa Shettar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom500; (1938)40BOMLR1029
Sen, J.1. These two appeals are by defendants Nos. 2 to 5 and by plaintiffs respectively in a suit for a declaration that the alienations made by defendant No. 1, the father of the plaintiffs, are not binding on the plaintiffs and for possession of the suit property, or in the alternative for partition and possession of the plaintiffs' shares in the suit property which is stated to be a three-fourths share. One of the suit properties, survey No. 32 in the village of Ingalahalli in Hubli taluka, was sold by defendant No. 1 to Adiveyya, father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and grandfather of defendants Nos. 4 and 5, on May 10, 1912, and this alienation is the subject-matter of appeal No. 87. At the time of this alienation the members of defendant No. 1's family were himself, his wife, defendant No. 11, plaintiff No. 1 and Rudrappa, defendant No. 1's son by a former wife.2. The grounds alleged in the plaint for the contention that the alienations are not binding on the plaintiffs are : the p...
Kamalabai Dattatraya Betgeri Vs. Pandurang Rudro
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom318; (1938)40BOMLR428
Divatia, J.1. This is a plaintiff's appeal in a suit based on a deed of gift made by her father in her favour on May 4, 1928, and registered on May 7. 1928. The suit has been resisted mainly by the first defendant, who is the adopted son of the plaintiff's father. The defendant's contention was that the deed of gift was not binding against him because it was passed after he was adopted, and that, therefore, his adoptive father had no power to make a gift in the plaintiff's favour after the property had vested in the coparcenary consisting of himself and his father. The material issues raised were as to whether the father Rudro had the power to dispose of the property under the gift-deed in favour of the plaintiff; whether it was proved that the said gift was part of a family arrangement and as such valid and binding on the defendants ; and whether the adoption took place before the gift in favour of the plaintiff. It appears that before the evidence was begun, the last issue, namely, w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »