Mumbai Court December 1938 Judgments
Dahyabhai Marghabhai Patel Vs. Bai Diwali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom366; (1939)41BOMLR757
Macklin, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the District Judge of Nadiad refusing to sanction the marriage of one of his wards upon the application of her personal guardian. A preliminary objection was taken that no appeal lay; but I am satisfied that the performance of a marriage is one of the 'proceedings' of a guardian that are referred to in Section 43 of the Guardians and Wards Act, so that any order passed under that section is subject to an appeal : see Reoti Lal v. Shiam Lal I.L.R. (1929) All. 74; also Monijan Bibi v. District Judge, Birbhum I.L.R. (1914) Cal. 351, Salubai Ganesh v. Keshavrao Vasudeo I.L.R. (1931) 56 Bom. 71 : S.C. 34 Bom. L.R. 83, and Laxminarayan Sheshgiri v. Parvatibai I.L.R. (1919) Bom. 690 : 22 Bom. L.R. 399, where by implication it could be inferred that Section 43 of the Act would govern the acts of a guardian appointed by a Court as regards the performance of the marriage of his ward.2. In the present case it was alleged that the marriage was an...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Hari Vs. Nathubhai Parbhubhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom353; (1939)41BOMLR755
Macklin, J.1. This was a suit to recover possession and rent on the strength of a lease. It was tried by the Court of Small Causes and the defendant comes in revision upon the allegation that the Court had no jurisdiction to try it except as a long cause suit. Coupled with the application for revision there is a further application for restitution of possession to the defendant.2. Normally this suit would not be triable by a Court of Small Causes. But by an amendment of the year 1930 the Bombay legislature permitted Courts of Small Causes to entertain suits for possession of landed property in cases where 'the only substantial issue arising for decision is as to whether the lease has determined by efflux of time limited thereby or has been determined by a notice in accordance with Clause (h) of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882.' In this case the defence was that the property belonged to the defendant but that she executed a rent-note merely as a matter of form and be...
Tag this Judgment!Ajai Verma Vs. Vijai Kumari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR700
George Lowndes, J.1. These consolidated appeals arise out of a suit filed by Kunwar Vijai Verma to make good his claim to a moiety of the Pawayan estate in the Shahjahanpur District of the United Provinces. The litigation has been protracted and in some ways singularly unfortunate, and the appeals as they come before this Board have little resemblance to the case originally tried. Only one of the issues originally raised is now in dispute and upon it their Lordships have not deemed it necessary to hear argument.2. It has been found by the Indian Courts, and is now admitted, that the Pawayan estate was, in the hands of Raja Fateh Singh, the father of Vijai Verma, an impartible Raj descending by the custom of male primogeniture, under which, on the Raja's death in December, 1921, it would, in the absence of any testamentary disposition by him, have passed intact to his eldest son, Raja Indra Bikram Singh, the original defendant in the suit. His younger brother, however, claimed that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Radharani Vs. Brindarani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1938
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR689
George Rankin, J.1. The parties in this case are governed by the Dayabhaga. The appeal is brought by the plaintiffs whose suit, instituted on September 20, 1930, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Dacca, has been dismissed by the trial Court (April 20, 1932), and by the High Court (January 17, 1936). The plaintiffs are the mother, widow and son of Matilal Das who died on October 24, 1925, and between them they represent his estate. They claim that Matilal in 1918 succeeded to the whole estate of his uncle Sasi Mohan who had died unmarried on October 1, 1865. The plaintiffs' case is simply that on the death of Sasi Mohan his mother Shyam Peary succeeded to his property for the estate of a Hindu mother, and that on her death (November 16, 1918), Matilal was the nearest reversioner to Sasi Mohan. They admit that, in the events which have happened, they have no need of relief as regard three-quarters of the estate left by Sasi Mohan, but they say that Brinda Rani Dasi, defendant No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Namdev Krishna Chaudhari Vs. Govardhan Nanabhai Gujarathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom277; (1939)41BOMLR463
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These two appeals raise a similar point of law in execution and it is sufficient to state the facts in appeal No. 517.2. The respondents in the year 1927 obtained a compromise decree against a judgment-debtor for payment of a sum of money and the judgment-debtor consented! to his property being attached. But it is in my opinion quite clear that there never was in fact any attachment. As pointed out by the Privy Council in Muthiah Chetti v. Pdaniappa Chetti : (1928)30BOMLR1353 . an order for attachment is one thing, and attachment another. Here there was no attempt to comply with the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 54, of the Civil Procedure Code Therefore in fact there was no attachment. However, the Court made an order for sale and sent the record to the Collector under Section 68 of the Civil Procedure Code, and the Collector proceeded to sell the properties in dispute, which are three survey numbers., viz., Nos. 7, 89 and 36, to the respondents, and the Maml...
Tag this Judgment!Govindprasad Vasudevprasad Tiwari Vs. Raghunathprasad Indraprasad Mano ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom289; (1939)41BOMLR589
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal is from an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge at Belgaum in darkhast proceedings, and the material facts are these. One Govindprasad died leaving, amongst others interested in the estate, a widow Tarabai, a son Vasudev, a son Balkrishna, who is said to be lunatic, and a daughter who married defendant No. 3. The plaintiff was adopted by the widow of Vasudev after her husband's death, and he sued, amongst others, Tarabai, defendant No. 1, and defendant No. 3 for possession of the estate of Vasudev. Tarabai claimed the family property as guardian of Balkrishna, and the other defendants supported her. The trial Judge held the adoption of the plaintiff proved, that Vasudev was separate, and that the plaintiff was entitled to the property he claimed, and accordingly he made an order that the plaintiff do recover possession of all the move-able and immoveable property claimed from all the defendants, the property including a sum of Rs. 6,500...
Tag this Judgment!Putlaji Vishram Desai Vs. Damodar Vishnu Vaidya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom405; (1939)41BOMLR805
N.J. Wadia, J.1. Respondent No. 1 is one of the inamdars of the village of Kondye in the Ratnagiri District having purchased a four-anna share in the inam from defendants Nos. 1 and 2 on November 15, 1923. He brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that he and defendants Nos. 3 to 10 were as inamdars the owners of all rights to trees, canals, water-courses, plants, grass, wood, stones, etc., in the village and entitled to all kinds of lands, stone-quarries, reeds along the creeks, and all varieties of; mango, jack-fruit, teak, black-wood and other timber or jungle trees in the village. He further prayed for an injunction to defendants Nos. 11 to 32 and all persons claiming under them or interested in the village as cultivators or otherwise, preventing them from doing any act prejudicial to the rights of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 3 to 10, and for Rs. 65 as damages against defendants Nos. 18 and 27 for the value of certain trees sold by defendant No. 18...
Tag this Judgment!Baburao Prahlad Badve Vs. Hariharrao Kashinathrao Khasgiwale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom279; (1939)41BOMLR490
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a civil revisional application from the orders of the District Judge of Sholapur passed upon the audit objections submitted to him by the Devasthan Committee of the Pandharpur temple against the accounts of the temple and its properties maintained by the committee of management constituted under the Scheme framed for the administration of this institution by the High Court on September 30, 1896.2. On behalf of the opponents, the members of the Devasthan Committee, a preliminary objection has been raised that the revisional application does not lie. In order to appreciate the merits of that objection and this application, it will be necessary to understand; the facts leading to the orders of the District Judge in question. As I have already said, the Scheme for Management was passed by the High Court on September 30, 1896. The management of the institution and its properties was left under that Scheme in the hands of the Committee of Badves, who are the chief pri...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Magan Bhikha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom153; (1939)41BOMLR284
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the four accused against their conviction by the Sessions Judge of Nadiad under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 3 was also convicted under Section 392, Indian Penal Code, read with Section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Tribes Act. The assessors disagreed with the learned Sessions Judge and were in favour of acquittal. It is no doubt true that conviction must depend entirely or almost entirely on the evidence of the complainant. We have been carefully through the record and we think the learned Sessions Judge was right in accepting the evidence of the complainant as to the fact of robbery and the circumstances in which he was robbed, that is to say, that he was robbed in a tobacco field to which he was taken, and that it was the appellants who robbed him. We are not disposed to believe his story as to why he went to the tobacco field, namely, that he was negotiating for the purchase of tobacco for his employer. It is obvious t...
Tag this Judgment!Charandas Vasanji Vs. Dossabhoy Maganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom182; (1939)41BOMLR328
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice Black-well on a summons taken out by the present appellants asking that the value of certain properties to be sold by the Sheriff should be settled by the Commissioner for Taking Accounts and forwarded by him to the Sheriff of Bombay.2. The facts are that a money judgment was obtained against the present appellants, and in execution of that judgment the judgment-creditor is proposing to get the immovable properties of the debtors sold by the Court.3. Under Rule 524 of the Rules of this Court, the Commissioner had to prepare a proclamation under Order XXI, Rule 66, Civil Procedure Code, and forward the same to the Sheriff. That was done, but the complaint is that the Commissioner did not ascertain the value of the property and, therefore, did not inform the Sheriff of such value. It is admitted that in sales by the Sheriff it is not the practice to fix a reserve price, and I have myself some difficulty in seeing...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »