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.
Balasubramanya Pandya Thalaivar Vs. Subbaya Tevar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR704
George Lowndes, J. 1. Navanithakrishna Marudappa Tevar, who claimed by adoption to the father of the last male holder. He will be referred to for convenience as the ' adopted son;'2. Subbayya Tevar, and3. Balasubrahmanya,each of these last-mentioned denying the validity of the adoption and claiming to be the nearest sapinda of the last male holder. There were other claimants in the Indian Courts and other parties to the suits, but none of them have appeared before the Board, and they may be disregarded for the purpose of these appeals.The following pedigree sets out the position of the respective parties.2. Navanitha II, the last male owner, was duly adopted by Irrudalaya and his second wife, Minakshi, to the exclusion of the first wife Annapurni, and after his death his adoptive mother Minakshi (hereinafter for convenience referred to as the ' Rani') was held entitled to succeed for a Hindu widow's estate (see Annapurni Nachiar v. Forbes . In 1901 she handed over the management of the...
The Mercantile Bank of India Limited Vs. the Central Bank of India Lim ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR713
Wright, J.1. The appellants and the respondents are limited companies carrying on the business of bankers in Madras, The appeal is against the judgment of the appellate Court of Madras who have held the appellants liable to the respondents for the conversion of their property. The question arises out of a series of frauds committed by a firm of merchants named C.K. Narayana Iyer & Sons, who will be referred to hereinafter as ' the merchants.' They were a firm who, until the frauds became disclosed, had enjoyed the highest standing and repute in Madras, where they carried on a large business as buyers and exporters of groundnuts. Their practice was to purchase the groundnuts from the up-country growers and have them despatched by rail to Madras. The railway companies and the Madras Port Trust, which had its own railway system within the Port, had a working arrangement between them under which the Trust took over the consignment of nuts on their arrival at the Port and lodged them in the...
Gangadhar Gopalrao Deshpande Vs. Shripad Annarao Deshpande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom231; (1938)40BOMLR324
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the following question has been referred to a full bench :-Whether after a suit for partition and possession of lands and mesne profits past and future has been brought and decided and the decree fails to award the claim to future mesne profits, a second suit to recover mesne profits from the institution of the first suit or the date of the decree till delivery, of possession is barred under Section 11, Expln. v. of the Civil Procedure Code?.2. The facts giving rise to the question are these. In 1923 a suit was brought by the plaintiff claiming partition of immoveable property, possession and mesne profits from the date of suit. In 1926 there was a compromise decree under which the plaintiff was to get two-thirds of the property and the defendant one-third, and the defendant was to effect partition and give delivery to the plaintiff of his two-thirds within fifteen days, and the plaintiff abandoned his claim to mesne profits. A dispute arose as t...
Hariprasad Chhotubhai Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1937
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR348
Rangnekar, J.1. The position in this second appeal seems to me to be extremely simple. The facts are as follows. In the year 1918 Government decided that a new survey should be introduced in the city of Surat. (Resolution No. 7607, dated July 22, 1918). Accordingly proceedings under the Land Revenue Code for that purpose were taken. It appears that the survey was completed and sanads were prepared to be granted to the holders of the properties in the city in lieu of their old sanads. The plaintiff who is the holder of many properties in the city alleged that the survey was not properly introduced, so far as at least he was concerned and that the sanads were not the proper sanads to which he was entitled under the Land Revenue Code. Accordingly, he appealed to the Collector from the orders of the City Survey Officer, and proceedings in this connection ultimately went to Government. In the meanwhile, however, he received a notice from the City Survey Officer calling upon him to pay the s...
Hariprasad Chhotubhai Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1937
Reported in: AIR1939Bom234
Rangnekar, J.1. The position in this second appeal seems to me to be extremely simple. The facts are as follows: In the year 1918, Government decided that a new survey should be introduced in the city of Surat (Resolution No. 7607, dated 22nd July 1918.) Accordingly proceedings under the Land Revenue Code for that purpose were taken. It appears that the survey was completed and sanads were prepared to be granted to the holders of the properties in the city in lieu of their old sanads. The plaintiff who is the holder of many properties in the city alleged that the survey was not properly introduced, so far as at least he was concerned and that the sanads were not the proper sanads to which he was entitled under the Land Revenue Code. Accordingly, he appealed to the Collector from the orders of the City Survey Officer, and proceedings in this connexion ultimately went to Government. In the meanwhile, however, he received a notice from the City Survey Officer calling upon him to pay the s...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›