Mumbai Court May 1938 Judgments
Satnam Singh Vs. Bawan Bhagwan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR912
Thankerton, J.1. The appellant seeks reversal of both the judgment and decree of the Court of the First Additional Subordinate Judge at Benares dated July 3, 1931, and the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated September 18, 1934, which affirmed it. The appeal was heard ex parte, as the respondent did not appear.2. The dispute relates to the office of Mahant of the Chaitanya Math, founded in Benares according to the rules and practice of Sadhus of a Sikh community known as the Nanakshahi Nirmali Sampradaya, according to the custom and usage of the Math. For the purposes of this appeal, the facts are much clarified by concurrent findings by the Courts below, and the matters in dispute are narrowed so that the main point left in dispute is whether the respondent, who is plaintiff in the suit, was validly installed as Mahant on April 13, 1928.3. The last Mahant, Ratan Singh, died on June 23, 1928, leaving a will dated June 5, 1928, under which he nominated...
Tag this Judgment!Parma Nand Vs. Nihal Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR907
Shadi Lal, J.1. In the town of Gujranwala there is a building variously described as Baghichi Thakaran or Gurdwara Baghichi, and the main issue, which their Lordships have to determine in this appeal, is whether that building, together with the shops and other property attached to it, is the subject-matter of a trust for a public purpose of a charitable or religious nature. The issue was raised by the defendants who, claiming to be the representatives of the Hindu public, made an application to the District Judge under Section 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act (XIV of 1920), alleging that the Baghichi Thakaran was a public endowment for religious and charitable purposes, and called upon Mahant Narain Das, who was described by them as the trustee of the endowment, to furnish details of the nature and purposes of the trust, and of the value of the property belonging to the trust, and also to render an account of the income and expenditure of the trust property. Their allegatio...
Tag this Judgment!SaIn Maule Shah Vs. Ghane Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1071
Shadi Lal, J. 1. The question raised by this appeal relates to the appointment of a sajjadanashin of a Moslem shrine situate at Ludhiana. in the Province of the Punjab. The shrine is known as takia Shah Shuhada, and belongs to a sect of ascetics called Madari fakirs. The sajjadanashin of the shrine was one Sain Jhandu Shah, who died on October 25, 1922. The matter in controversy between the parties is whether the appellant Maule Shah was validly appointed to succeed Sain Jhandu Shah in the office of the sajjadanashin of this institution.2. A takia is a place where a fakir or dervish (a person who abjures the world and becomes an humble servitor of God) resides before his pious life and teachings attract public notice, and before disciples gather round him, and a place is constructed for their lodgement (Mohiuddin v. Sayiduddin I.L.R. (1893) Cal. 810.3. A takia is recognised by law as a religious institution, and a grant or endowment to it is a valid wakf or public trust for a religious...
Tag this Judgment!Rowland Ady Vs. the Administrator-general of Burma
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1075
Wright, J.1. The question in this appeal relates to a promissory note executed by the appellants dated September 12, 1933. This note was a renewal of an earlier promissory note executed in 1930, but as it is common ground that the considerations which would have applied to the original note, applied to the renewal, no distinction need be drawn between the two documents. The question to be determined is, what were the conditions on which the earlier promissory note was executed.2. The appeal is by Rowland Ady, who will be referred to as the appellant, Rowland Ady & Co. being merely the firm name under which he carries on business so that it may be disregarded in this appeal. The respondent, the Administrator-General of Burma, is the administrator of the estate of one Hosain Hamadanee, deceased.3. In 1927 the appellant, Hamadanee and one James Cyril Ashe, who was a mining engineer, formed a syndicate to operate certain mining rights, here referred to as Booth's Grant, for the purpose of ...
Tag this Judgment!Malik Harikishan Singh Vs. Malik Partap Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1938
Reported in: (1938)40BOMLR1068
Shadi Lal, J. 1. Hira Singh, the father of the plaintiff-respondent Partap Singh, resided originally in Dera Khalsa, a village situated in the Rawalpindi District, He admittedly constituted a joint Hindu family with his two sons, Narain Singh and Partap Singh. The family owned ancestral property consisting of a house and agricultural land. In 1872, when Narain Singh was about eight years old and Partap Singh about six years, Hira Singh migrated with his sons from his ancestral village to Abbottabad. He acquired some property at Abbottabad and also carried on business there. Partap Singh was educated by his father, first, at Abbottabad, and then at Lahore. He completed his education in 1888, when he went with the Black Mountain Expeditionary Force as a contractor for supplying articles of food and other necessaries to the troops. He earned money in his business of contract, and on his return to Abbottabad, he handed it over to his father. He subsequently went to Rawalpindi and supervise...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›