Mumbai Court August 1937 Judgments
Vinayak Ganesh Malwadkar Vs. Shantabai Bapu Bayaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1937
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR180
Thakor, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff-mortgagee against that part of the decree of the learned First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona wherein he declined to award to the plaintiff relief to the extent of an item of Rs. 683-12-0, which was part of his mortgage.2. The circumstances under which the suit came to be brought were these : The defendant Shantabai was a minor who had inherited certain properties. A guardian was appointed by the District Court of Poona both of her person and property, the guardian being one Bapu Bayaji Hendre, whom the minor Shantabai appears to have subsequently married. The estate had certain debts and decrees. The guardian Bapu applied to the District Court on June 3, 1925, that he should be permitted to mortgage one of the houses to the present plaintiff for Rs. 5,500 at one per cent, per mensem. The necessity for the mortgage recited in the application was that one Baloba had obtained a mortgage decree for sale against the suit house and was execu...
Tag this Judgment!Rudragouda Venkangouda Patil Vs. Basangouda Danappagouda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-24-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom257; (1938)40BOMLR202
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum dismissing the suit for possession of certain entire parcels of property and for a share in others after partition. The plaintiff and the defendant are members of a watandar family of patels of Neginhal, a town in the Belgaum District. The plaintiff's branch was separated several years ago. There is conflict as to the year of separation. The plaintiff alleged that the separation took place in 1881, and not in 1883 as the defendant maintained. At the time of separation there were three branches of the patel family entitled to division of the family property which consisted of watan lands and houses in four Government villages, namely, Keserkop, Neginhal, Singarkop and Ramapur, and the entire alienated or inam village of Dori. The three branches were represented at the time of the division by Venkangouda, Basangouda, the father of the defendant, and Rudragowda, the grandfather of the minor p...
Tag this Judgment!Sureshchandra Jamietram Vs. Bai Ishwari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom206; (1938)40BOMLR127
Barlee, J. 1. The plaintiffs sued for a declaration that the decree in suit No. 24 of 1919 against their father which was in connection with the suit property was not binding on them on the ground that their father Jamiet-ram did not properly represent them in that suit and had been guilty of gross negligence. The defendants, now respondents, pleaded that the suit was barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, that it was barred by res judicata as Jamietram did represent the plaintiffs in that suit, and that it was barred by the law of limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge framed four preliminary issues, and as a result of his findings on those issues he dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs have appealed.2. The first issue raised by the learned Judge was whether the suit is not barred by res judicata. He held that it was barred by res judicata inasmuch as the father Jamietram had defended the suit and had fought the matter up to this Court and that he represented his minor sons...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Ramchandra Raoji Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom87; (1937)39BOMLR1184; 173Ind.Cas.13
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference from the Sessions Judge of Sholapur asking us to set aside the conviction of the accused by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Pandharpur Sub-division, under Section 68(c) of the Indian Stamp Act. The1 case is said to be a test case on which there is no direct authority in Bombay. It appears that the accused is a money-lender, and he keeps a book, vyajwahi, in which entries are made as to loans, and the two entries which are the foundation of the present prosecution are, first, an entry in the form, ' Received Rs. 1,500 in cash to-day,' which is signed by one Salgarkar, the borrower; and, secondly, an entry in respect of a sum of Rs. 2,000, stated to be in two hundis for Rs. 1,500, and Rs. 500 in cash, which is again signed by the same borrower. So that the entries are the ordinary entries in the borrower's khata with the creditor acknowledging the payments.2. A question has been raised whether the entries are receipts or acknowledgments under...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Waman Ramji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1937
Reported in: AIR1937Bom481; (1937)39BOMLR1065
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference made by the District Magistrate of West Khandesh inviting the Court to set aside an order made by the Third Class Magistrate of Sindkheda under Section 562(1A) of the Criminal Procedure Code on the ground that the Magistrate had no power to make the order in view of the proviso to Section 562(i). The District Magistrate's view is no doubt based on the decision of this Court in Emperor V. Ranchhod Harjivan : AIR1925Bom479 though the Allahabad High Court in Murlidhar v. Mahbub Khan I.L.R. (1924) All 353 has taken the view that the proviso to Section 562(1) does not apply to Section 562(1A), When the matter came before a division bench consisting of myself and Mr. Justice Norman, we thought that there was some doubt as to whether the decision in Emperor v. Ranchhod Harjivan was right and therefore the matter was referred to a full bench, and the Government Pleader has appeared and submitted his views to the Court.2. Now Section 562(i) enables...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Balvant Jade Vs. Shankar Waman Govaikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom215; (1938)40BOMLR115
Macklin, J.1. These are cross appeals from an order of the Assistant Judge of Satara passed in appeal remanding the case for the determination of the fact of an easement claimed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs objected inter alia to the finding of fact that the wall through which the plaintiffs claimed an easement of light and air over the defendant's property for the benefit of their own house was a joint wall, and the defendant objected to the finding of law that it was possible for the plaintiffs to acquire an easement of light and air through the wall, having regard to the fact that the wall was a joint wall. The plaintiffs had sued for the establishment of an easement of light and air through windows which they had built in the wall intervening between their house and the defendant's land.2. The trial Court, relying upon Rajubhai v. Lalbhai (1925) 28 Bom. L. R.1000 dismissed the suit simply on the ground that ' an easement of light and air through windows opened in a joint wall ...
Tag this Judgment!The Bandra Municipality Vs. the Burmah Shell Storage and Distributing ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom214; (1938)40BOMLR111
Macklin, J.1. The only question in issue in this appeal is the meaning of the words ' kept for use within the said borough' occurring in Clause (ii) of Section 73 of the Bombay Municipal Boroughs Act (XVIII of 1925). The whole clause runs as follows :-' A tax on all vehicles, boats or animals used for riding, draught or burden and kept for use within the said borough, whether they are actually kept within or outside the said borough.' The last words 'whether they are actually kept within or outside the said borough ' were imported into the section in consequence of the decision of this Court in Surat Municipality v.Maneklal : (1920)22BOMLR1104 .2. In the present case the plaintiffs, who are the Burmah Shell Storage and Distributing Co. of India, Ltd., sued for a declaration that they were not liable to pay wheel-tax to the Bandra Municipality. The Company maintains a petrol storage pump at Bandra and maintains a fleet of lorries in Bombay for the supply of its pumping stations both in ...
Tag this Judgment!Shivgangawa Madiwalappa Vulavi Vs. Basangouda Govindgouda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom304; (1938)40BOMLR132
Wassoodew, J.1. This appeal arises from the decree of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum dismissing the plaintiff's suit for a declaration that the gift-deed dated August 10, 1927, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant was void as it was obtained by undue influence, fraud and coercion, and for recovery of possession of a field and house comprised therein, together with mesne profits. The learned trial Judge upheld the defence containing a categorical denial of the plaintiff's assertions invalidating the document.2. The plea of undue influence was adumbrated in the following manner in the plaint. It was stated that the plaintiff was a young widow with no relatives to look after her, that she had quarrelled with her husband's brother who was sponging on her slender income from the property inherited from her brother, and that when she fell out with him and sought the advice of the first defendant who was an influential man in the village, the latter b...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dagadu Shetiba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom43; (1937)39BOMLR1062
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against an order made by the Presidency Magistrate, 5th Court, acquitting the accused, who was charged with an offence under Section 43(1)(a) of the Bombay Abkari Act (Bom. V of 1878). The learned Magistrate has found as a fact, and I see no reason to differ from his finding, that the accused was going from Jogeshwari, which, I understand, is in the neighbourhood of Andheri, to Khed taluka in Poona in order to visit his father, who was ill. In order to get to that place he had to change stations at Bombay. He had to change from the B.B. & C.I. Railway to the G.I.P. Railway, and he changed stations at Dadar. He had with him an open bottle of country liquor containing five drams, and he was arrested in Bombay, and charged with an offence under the Bombay Abkari Act. I must say that I think it unfortunate that excise constables do not seem to have vested in them any sort of discretion. Anything more calculated to irr...
Tag this Judgment!Bhau Nana Patil Vs. Revappa Satappa Shintre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1937
Reported in: AIR1938Bom196; (1938)40BOMLR109
Macklin, J.1. This is a suit on a mortgage purporting to be for Rs. 3000 executed in 1919 by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of the plaintiffs. The claim was allowed in the main by the trial Court and instalments were refused. The defendants now come in appeal on the ground that the consideration was not paid in full, that instalments should have been allowed, and that Section 67A of the Transfer of Property Act is a bar to the present suit.2. I take first the question of Section 67A. That section provides that ' a mortgagee who holds two or more mortgages executed by the same mortgagor in respect of each of which he has a right to obtain the same kind of decree under Section 67 ' cannot sue on his mortgages separately. It was contended in the lower Court also that this section was a bar to the present suit, since upon the same day as the mortgage in this suit was executed a further mortgage for Rs. 2000 was executed between the same parties and a suit upon that further mortgage has a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »