Mumbai Court January 1938 Judgments
Ganesh Shankarbhat Sadalgekar Vs. Gangabai Shambhubhat Sadalgekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom114; (1939)41BOMLR170
Divatia, J.1. In Second Appeal No. 572 the appellant is the original plaintiff, and the only question in this appeal is whether the suit to recover a portion of the Yedur property is barred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. The lower appellate Court has held, differing from the trial Court, that the suit is so barred because the plaintiff ought to have proceeded in execution of the award decree of 1894 for recovering this property inasmuch as it was directed in that decree that on the death of Bhujang, which took place in 1898, the plaintiff was entitled to recover one-third share in this property. The lower Court has based this reasoning not on the ground that there was an executable decree based on the award but on the ground that although there was no judgment or decree in conformity with law based on the award, the plaintiff, who had filed a certain application in execution of the order of the Court directing the award to be filed, is estopped from contending that the o...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Jivaji Patil Vs. Gurunathgouda Khandappagouda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom1; (1938)40BOMLR1134
Rangnekar J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the appellants' suit for possession of the property mentioned in the plaint, and the real question in the appeal is whether the suit brought by the appellants is barred by limitation.2. The case is an off-shoot of the well-known case of Bhimabai v. Gurunathgouda (1932) 35 Bom. L. R. 200 : L. R. 60. IndAp 25. In that case their Lordships of the Privy Council reversed the decree made by this Court and upheld the adoption of the plaintiff. The decision of this Court is reported in 30 Bom. L. R.859. I shall endeavour to state the facts which gave rise to the present action as concisely as possible.3. There were three brothers, members of a joint and undivided Hindu family, by name Nilkantgouda, Khandappagouda and Jivangouda, being the sons of one Dyamangouda, who is referred to in the record as Dyamangouda I. The family was possessed of considerable vatan pr...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Govind Unavne Vs. Laxman Savleram Ronghe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom447; (1938)40BOMLR892
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by defendant No. 2 against a decree directing that the amount deposited by him should not be accepted and that the decree should be executed as if default had taken place in the deposit of the amount. The decree passed against the appellant directed that the defendant should deposit Rs. 200 in Court within fifteen days from that day, i.e. January 23, 1936, that the plaintiff should pass a sale-deed of the suit property to the defendant and then recover the amount deposited in Court, and that if the defendant failed to pay Rs. 200 within fifteen days as ordered, the plaintiff was at liberty to recover possession of half of the property from the defendant upon an equitable partition. The defendant deposited Rs. 200 on February 7, 1936, but the trial Court held that the deposit was not made within fifteen days as directed but that it was made on the sixteenth day, and that therefore it was not made in time and the decree was to be executed on the basis that...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Jalam Bharatsing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom279; (1938)40BOMLR317
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused from jail in which the accused asks to be allowed to argue his appeal. As we have had a good many cases recently in which accused persons in jail have preferred a request to be allowed to come and argue their appeals when they come up for admission, we thought it right to ask the learned Government Pleader to look into the matter and refer us to any authorities on the subject, since there does not appear to be any ruling of this Court upon the question.2. Section 419 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides that every appeal shall be made in the form of a petition in writing presented by the appellant or his pleader, and every such petition shall be accompanied by the documents therein referred to. Section 420 provides that if the appellant is in, jail, he may present his petition of appeal and the copies accompanying the same to the officer in charge of the jail, who shall thereupon forward such petition and copies to the prop...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›