Mumbai Court November 1938 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.
Tayerali Mahamadali Vs. Garabad Sadu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR455
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This revisional application raises a short point on the law of limitation. The defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff on April 13, 1933, and the suit was filed on November 10, 1936, so that the suit is out of time, unless the plaintiff can bring his case within one of the exceptions contained in the Indian Limitation Act. He relies upon a document endorsed on the promissory note on October 4, 1934, and the question is whether that document saves limitation under Section 19 or Section 20 of the Indian Limitation Act. The document states that the debtor has given certain Bajri of the value of Rs. 54 towards vasul, which means towards payment. That is credited. And then again at the bottom of the document it is stated ' Rs. 54 paid as vasul'. So that what it comes to is that there is a payment of Rs. 54 on account of the debt, which must mean the debt secured by the document on which this endorsement was made.2. The plaintiff in framing ...
Sahebgouda Ningappa Patil Vs. Shiddangouda Ningappa Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom166; (1939)41BOMLR333
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This appeal raises a very interesting question of Hindu Law as regards the rights of an adopted son and after-born natural sons with regard to impartible property.2. One Ningappa Bandeppa Patil adopted the defendant Sahebgouda as his son in 1920. A registered adoption deed was passed, and as Ningappa was a watandar patil, the adoption was duly reported to the revenue authorities as required by Section 34 of the Bombay Hereditary Offices Act. After the defendant's adoption, two sons, Shiddangauda and Basappa, were born to Ningappa. They are the plaintiffs in the suit. Ningappa died in April, 1931. The property which he left behind him consisted of some lands, houses and moveable property at Algur and an eight-anna share in the patilki watan. On his death the name of the adopted son was entered in the watan register in spite of the protests of Girjabai, the mother of the minor plaintiffs. Then the plaintiffs through their guardiam brought a suit for a declaration that th...
Shripad Baji Garware Vs. Dattatraya Vithal Garware
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR485
Broomfield, J.1. In a suit for partition of joint family property filed by the plaintiff, the opponent in this application, against four defendants, the present applicants, of whom defendants Nos. 2 to 4 were the minor sons of defendant No. 1, an application was made by the plaintiff and assented to by defendant No. 1 for the reference of the matters in dispute in the suit to arbitration. The Court allowed the application and appointed the arbitrators suggested by the parties, two pleaders. In course of time, after nearly three years in fact, the arbitrators gave an award. The defendants then applied under paragraph 15 of Sch. II of the Code to set aside the award on various grounds, the principal of which were that the arbitrators have been guilty of misconduct, that they had without any justification held the defendants liable to account for a sum of Rs. 21,000 and that the award was illegal and invalid on the face of it. This last objection was mainly based on a ground not mentioned...
T.L. Wilson and Co. Vs. Hari Ganesh Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom250; (1939)41BOMLR410
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a petition made by Messrs. T.L. Wilson & Co., Solicitors of London, who had acted on behalf of one Sitabai, widow of Ramchandra Sadashiv Khare, respondent in a Privy; Council Appeal No. 57 of 1934, which was decided in her favour on April 13, 1937, for payment of the balance of the costs not received from their client or her executors out of the security deposited in this Court by the appellant under the provisions of Order XLV, Rule 7, of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.2. The petitioners allege that they have received 100 from the respondent Sitabai towards their legal charges and an extra sum of 2 from her executors after her death when they were brought on record in her place, and that they are entitled, under the terms of their agreement, to the difference between that sum and the sum taxed in the Bill of Costs in the Order in Council, the total sum payable under that order being 199 3s. 9d. It seems that under pressure and persuasion of Sitabai's agent, one...
Narhari Gangadharji Vs. Baburao Ranchhodlal Vaidya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom299; (1939)41BOMLR413
Macklin, J.1. In the matter which has given rise to this appeal the plaintiff claimed to be the heir to the property in suit and disputed a will, under which the moveable property (valued at Rs. 94,000) had gone to defendants Nos. 1 and 2, and also an award decree, under which the immoveable property (valued at Rs. 30,000) had gone to defendant No. 3. But he put his claim in the form of a suit for administration (not for possession), valued it notionally at Rs. 800, and filed it in the Second Class Court. The Second Class Subordinate Judge framed; preliminary issues as to jurisdiction, valuation, and multifariousness, and dismissed the suit on all three points. If the Judge had no jurisdiction, he was clearly in error in dismissing the suit; and on the plaintiff appealing to the District Judge the dismissal was set aside and it was ordered that the suit should be transferred to; the First Class Court for trial.2. The First Class Subordinate Judge tried the issues of valuation and multi...
Emperor Vs. Punjaji Lalaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom174; (1939)41BOMLR277
Macklin, J.1. On July 13, 1938, the accused in this case was sentenced to pay a fine or to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month in default for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. That sentence was passed by the Third Class Magistrate; and the accused being unable to pay the fine immediately went to jail. On July 26, he was sentenced by another Magistrate (First Class) to rigorous imprisonment for two months under the Bombay Abkari Act (Bom. V of 1878) and also to rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code. The First Class Magistrate directed that the sentence of two months' rigorous imprisonment passed under the Abkari Act should run concurrently with the imprisonment which the accused was at that time undergoing in default of payment of fine in the case decided by the Third Class Magistrate. The District Magistrate, Ahmedabad, has referred this matter to us upon the ground that a sentence of imprisonment in default of paym...
Kusum Krishnaji Panse Vs. Krishnaji Anant Panse
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-10-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom271; (1939)41BOMLR445
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Satara in a suit instituted by the three minor daughters of the defendant Krishnaji, through their next friend their maternal grandfather Shankar, to recover from him maintenance at the rate of Rs. 45 per month till their marriage, Rs. 945 for arrears of maintenance since February 13, 1933, till the date of suit, Rs. 2,000 for marriage expenses, and Rs. 2,550 or ornaments of, equal value left by their deceased mother in the possession of the defendant. The latter has met the claim with the plea that he was deprived of the company and custody of his children by their maternal grandfather, that notwithstanding his continuous eagerness and willingness to maintain and bring them up and educate them, the plaintiffs were kept away from him during the lifetime of their mother and since her death, and that in consequence he is not liable to pay the sums claimed, particularly when they have been living sep...
Ganesh Vishnu Vijapure Vs. Kashinath Thakuji Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom209; (1939)41BOMLR384
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge at Poona, and it raises a question of law. One Ramlinga owned a press, from which he published a newspaper, and he owed debts, including a debt due to the plaintiff on promissory notes for a sum of Rs. 2,700 odd. The plaintiff filed a suit in 1934 to recover that debt, and in the suit he got an order for attachment before judgment of the press. Later in the year 1934, the defendant filed a suit against Ramlinga and obtained a decree for Rs. 6,000 odd, the decree being based on an award. The plaintiff's case is that that decree obtained by the defendant against Ramlinga was fraudulent and collusive and that the defendant is not entitled to attach the property which the plaintiff had previously attached, The learned Judge held that the defendant's decree was fraudulent and collusive, and he made a declaration that the goods attached by the plaintiff are not liable to be attached and so...
Fidaalli Mulla Kurbanalli Vs. Akbaralli Kadarbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom210; (1939)41BOMLR387
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of West Khandesh at Dhulia. The suit relates to a house, the ground floor of which is vested in the defendant and the first floor of which is vested in the plaintiff. The house was originally partitioned as long ago as 1876, and, it is not, in my opinion, necessary to refer in detail to the title prior to suit.2. The plaintiff's case is that as owner of the first floor he is entitled to support from the ground floor. He also claims a right to the use of a privy and to draw water from a well on the defendant's land and to the use of a staircase. The trial Court held that the right to the privy had been abandoned, and it granted an injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's right to draw water from the well and to the use of the staircase, and on those two points the District Judge agreed with the trial Court, and in my opinion there is no reason for interfering with t...
Bhalchandra Dattatraya Bubane Vs. Chanbasappa Mallappa Warad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom237; (1939)41BOMLR391
Sen, J.1. The appellant was the defendant in a suit based on a mortgage bond dated July 22, 1907, for Rs. 3,450 taken from his father by the father of the plaintiff-respondent. The suit was filed on October 9, 1933. In order to show that the suit was within time, which was the principal question at issue in the trial Court and the only one in this appeal, the plaintiff has relied on the following circumstances. His father died on January 19, 1911, and he was born on October 10, 1909, the defendant's father having died about 1908. The amount of the bond was repayable within one year. Therefore limitation began to run in the plaintiff's father's life-time. If, therefore, the plaintiff could show that limitation got a fresh start during his minority and after his father's death, the period of limitation would be extended up to the expiry of three years from the date of his attaining majority, that is, up to October 10, 1933, and the suit would be in time. In order to show this the plainti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »