Mumbai Court March 1938 Judgments
Saiyed Mohammad Raza Vs. Badr-ul-islam Ali Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR835
George Rankin, J.1. On May 25, 1887, Agha Kalb Abid Khan, a Shia Mussulman of Persian origin, died at Amritsar leaving as his heirs a brother Kalb Ali Khan and a sister Mussammat Hussaini Khanum. On March 3, 1887, he had made a will, the true construction and effect whereof is the subject of this appeal. He was possessed of a half share in certain immovable property in the district of Farrukhabad which he had inherited from his father and of which the income was expended on an Imambara and other religious purposes at Fatehgarh. In addition thereto he was possessed of immovable property at Amritsar and Lahore valued by him in his will at Rs. 1,73,000 and thereby described, valued and disposed of in detail. Of his properties at Lahore valued by him at about Rs. 60,000, three, of a total value of Rs. 36,200, were given by the will to his brother Kalb Ali, and one, valued at Rs. 18,000, to his sister Hussaini Khanum. There remained two parcels of land at or near Lahore-one measuring forty-...
Tag this Judgment!Shantaram Vithal Wakde Vs. Shantaram Bhagwan Sinkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom451; (1938)40BOMLR964
Broomfield, J.1. A promissory note was executed by appellant No. 1 in favour of Bhagwan, the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, who according to the plaint was the manager of the joint family of the plaintiffs. Bhagwan having died, the family now consists of plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 3, his sons, and plaintiff No. 4, his brother. They sued the defendants, appellant No. 1 and his son, to recover the amount of the promissory note in their capacity of surviving coparceners. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the authority of Kamalakant v. Madhavji (1934) 37 Bom. L.R. 405 where B.J. Wadia J. held that a coparcener who becomes entitled by survivorship to the joint family property of the family to which the deceased holder of a promissory note belongs, cannot sue on the instrument, inasmuch as he cannot give a valid and proper discharge to the maker. In appeal the District Judge allowed the plaintiffs to file a succession certificate which they had in the meantime obtained, and holding that thi...
Tag this Judgment!Tulsiram Tukaram Vs. Totaram Pandu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom465; (1938)40BOMLR1005
Rangnekar, J.1. This second appeal raises a point of some interest. The facts are : there were four brothers-Tukaram, Totaram and two others. The latter are not concerned in this litigation. Before the suit, out of which this appeal arises, Tukaram brought a suit against Totaram for possession of some property. Totaram contended in that suit that as the result of a partition between the brothers that property had been allotted to his share. When the suit was ripe for hearing and the parties were ready with their witnesses, Tukaram stated that if Totaram took a special oath and stated that the property had come to the latter as the result of a partition, he would be bound by it and would agree to the suit being dismissed. Totaram having agreed, a special oath was administered by the Court to Totaram, and he then stated that the property in the suit was his exclusive property and that it had come to him as the result of a partition between the brothers. Upon that the suit was dismissed. ...
Tag this Judgment!Hiralal Ramsukh Vs. Monghibai Chimnaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom510; (1938)40BOMLR1025
Rangnekar, J.1. This is a civil application calling upon the opponent to show cause why she should not furnish security for the costs incurred by the applicant in the lower Courts as well as the costs likely to be incurred in the High Court. Mr. Gajendragadkar on behalf of the opponent has taken a preliminary objection. To understand the nature of the objection, certain facts have to be stated.2. A firm of the name of Nawalmal Kasturchand and its two partners were adjudicated insolvents under the Provincial Insolvency Act on September 8, 1934. The applicant was appointed receiver of the estate of the insolvents. He applied to the Court for leave to sell a house belonging to one of the partners. This application was opposed by the opponent on the ground that the house was the partner's private property. In those proceedings the Court made an order by consent that the house be sold by the receiver and the question as to whom the house belonged should be reserved. Thereafter the opponent ...
Tag this Judgment!Daso Venkatesh Kulkarni Vs. Ramchandra Rango Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom456; (1938)40BOMLR960
Macklin, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover a half share in the property in suit by partition with defendant No. 1 upon the ground of his having been adopted into the joint family. The fact of the adoption was disputed in the trial Court, and is still disputed in this appeal. But the main ground of contention was, and is, the validity of the adoption. The adoption was made by defendant No. 3 to her husband Rango. Defendant No. 3 is the sister of the plaintiff and is also the niece of Rango. But the fact that Rango married his niece is not material for the present purposes. What does matter is that the plaintiff is the son of Rango's sister, and an adoption of that kind is prohibited by the general rule of Hindu law unless there is some custom to the contrary. The parties to the suit are Deshastha Brahmins living in the Belgaum district. The trial Court has held that the fact: of the adoption is proved and that there is a custom by which such. adoptions are recognised among Deshastha. B...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Lal Vs. the Collector of Budaun
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1063
Wright, J.1. Their Lordships do not find it necessary to hear argument in this case from counsel for the respondent.2. The appeal is from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad which affirmed, subject to what will be said later, a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun.3. The action was brought by the respondent to obtain a declaration that two deeds, one of the 1st and the other of the 2nd July, 1923, were not binding on the ground that they were obtained by fraud and undue influence. One was a deed of gift of certain properties and the other a deed of sale.4. The action also claimed that the decree in suit No. 201 of 1923 was also void and should be set aside on the ground that it had been obtained by fraud.5. The Subordinate Judge, in a careful judgment in which he made all possible assumptions in favour of the appellant, the defendant in the action, found that the allegations were made out and that these two deeds and the decree had been obtained by fraud and undue influence an...
Tag this Judgment!Lakhaji Dollaji and Co. Vs. Boorugu Mahadeo Rajanna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom101; (1939)41BOMLR6
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice B.J. Wadia, The facts are really not in dispute. The plaintiffs instructed the defendants, who carry on business as commission agents in bullion in Bombay, to purchase silver bars on their account and to keep them. The defendants purchased the bars and kept them at their pedhi in Bombay, where three of the bars were lost. There is no suggestion that they were lost through any dishonest action on the part of the defendants. Nobody knows how they were lost, but the presumption is that they were stolen. At any rate they were lost, and the plaintiffs sued for damages for the loss of those three bars. The learned Judge held upon the facts that the defendants were guilty of negligence in the manner in which they kept the bars. I do not think that point can be seriously disputed. The defendants kept the bars, with a number of other bars, in their pedhi in Bombay, placed against the wall, the pedhi being open. They wer...
Tag this Judgment!Balkrishna Ramchandra Konkar Vs. Calcutta Soap Works
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR956
Rangnekar, J.1. This is an application against an order of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona rejecting an application made by the petitioner for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The learned Judge has rejected that application on merits. This is challenged by Mr. Gajendragadkar, and he says that the statement in the judgment that the applicant owns property valued at over Rs. 5,000 is obviously wrong. In the first place, it seems to me that it is a finding of the Court which I must accept for the purpose of an application under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. But, apart from that, it: seems to me that there is another serious difficulty which has to be considered. The petitioner was adjudicated an insolvent on December 11, 1935. He applied for discharge on September 10, 1936, and those proceedings are pending. After the adjudication order, that is to say on December 28, 1935, he filed the present application. It seems to me that it is fundamentally opposed to all princi...
Tag this Judgment!Raghunandan N. Kothare Vs. Keshavrao B. Kirtikar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-24-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom194; (1939)41BOMLR287
Somjee, J.1. This is a petition for Letters of Administration to the estate of Bai Champubai, daughter of one Keshav Vinayak Dhairyavan. The petitioner is the son of the sister of the father of the deceased Bai Champubai. Defendant No. 1 has filed a caveat. He is the son of the sister of the mother of Bai Champubai. Another caveat has been filed by defendant No. 2 who is a distant paternal relative of the deceased Bai Champubai, being the father's father's brother's son's son.2. The first question for consideration is whether defendant No. 2 had any interest in the estate of Bai Champubai to entitle him to file the caveat. It is admitted by all parties concerned that in the absence of any interest in the estate of the deceased Bai Champubai defendant No. 2 would have no right to file this caveat in this suit.3. It is also admitted by all parties before me that Bai Champubai died unmarried and her estate is her stridhan property which has to be administered now. The question then is, wh...
Tag this Judgment!The Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. the New India Assurance Company Ltd ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR980
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference by the Commissioner of Income-tax under Section 66 (2) of the Indian Income-tax Act in which he raises the question, whether two sums of seventy-nine thousand and odd rupees and two lacs and odd rupees respectively being interest accruing without British India on dollar securities and sterling securities respectively, were, in the circumstances of the case, received in, or brought into British India.2. The learned Advocate General has contended in the first instance that this is really a question of fact which ought not to have been referred to us. No doubt, the question, whether or not the sums were actually received in British India, is a question of fact, but, if the sums were not actually received, the question whether they ought to be treated as constructively received, is a question of law. Unfortunately, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax has not stated the facts of the case very clearly in this reference. The reference in part ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »