Mumbai Court August 1938 Judgments
Basangowda Huliappagowda Hiregoudar Vs. Fakirgowda Lingangowda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom56; (1938)40BOMLR1288
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The respondent filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for a declaration that he was the nearest heir of Chanbasangowda in respect of the patilki hak of one Chinawa under Section 36 of the Watan Act. The relationship of the parties is given in the pedigrees in the judgments of both the lower Courts. Basangowda Ningangowda, who was entered as the representative watandar in the patilki watan of Adargunchi, died in the year 1876. After him the name of his widow Chinawa was entered as the representative watandar. She died in 1900. Basangowda represented the senior branch of the family. The plaintiff and the defendant belong to the junior branch. Chanbasangowda bin Basangowda, the grandfather of the defendant as well as of the plaintiff, who was the representative of the junior branch, died in the year 1904. His patilki hak was entered in the revenue records in the name of the plaintiff Fakirgowda who was the son of Chanbasangowda's second son Ningangowda. Chanbasang...
Tag this Judgment!The Dewarkhand Cement Company, Limited Vs. the Secretary of State for ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom215; (1939)41BOMLR297
Rangnekar, J.1. This case raises a question of importance with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 106 of the Government of India Act, 1919, and another question with regard to the proper stamp duty to be charged on a deed of transfer of a lease. After setting out the facts of the case the judgment proceeded.:2. The defendant pleads, first, that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit by reason of Section 106(2) of the Government of India Act, 1919. He further pleads that as the stamp duty in respect of the document was duly determined, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, by the authorities specially empowered thereunder to determine the matter, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On the merits, his defence is that the document was not duly stamped, and that the case fell within the provisions of Section 25(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, and not under Section 25(b) as the plaintiffs contended.3. Section 106 was...
Tag this Judgment!Chandulal Asharam Travadi Vs. Bai Kashi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom59; (1938)40BOMLR1262
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued for possession of certain property which had belonged to a lady named Bai Moti. The defendant is the person in possession of the property. Both the lower Courts held that Bai Moti was married in unapproved form. That rinding ischallenged in this second appeal on the ground that there is no evidence to support it. The lower Courts relied on exhibits 59 and 60, which purported to be accounts showing that a price had been paid on the marriage of Bai Moti, and that would constitute marriage in unapproved form. The exhibits are not signed, and there is nothing on the face of them to show by whom they were written. The lower Courts both relied on the presumption arising under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, but that section does not apply. It only provides that documents more than thirty years old coming from proper custody prove themselves, but it does not involve any presumption that the contents of the documents are true. ...
Tag this Judgment!Virbhadrappa Shilvant Vs. Shekabai Harun Sayed Ahmed Arab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom188; (1939)41BOMLR249
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur allowing a claim of Rs. 12,000 with interest due on loan transactions followed by a settlement of account thereof on November 2, 1929. There was also an alternative claim on a hundi passed contemporaneously with the said settlement, and it is alleged that it was given as security for the major part of the amount found due, viz., Rs. 12,000. The plaintiffs were the four wives of one Sayed Harun Sayed Ahmed to whom the defendants' shop of Virabhadrappa Shilvant at Barsi was indebted to the extent of Rs. 12,295 in or about November, 1929. On the above date accounts were taken and the defendants gave a hundi to the said Sayed Harun for Rs. 12,000. The balance of Rs. 295 was subsequently paid in two sums, one of Rs. 255 and the other Rs. 48 in 1930 or thereabouts. Sayed Harun died in October, 1932, without presenting the hundi for payment and his widows claiming to represent his estate, being ...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Raghunath Hasabnis Vs. Ishwar Kusaji Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-11-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom79; (1938)40BOMLR1270
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The appellants brought this suit to recover possession of certain properties which originally belonged to one Masu Vithu. Masu died in 1890 leaving two widows Koyna and Renai. Koyna died first. Renai had a daughter named Walu. Respondent No. 1 was the son-in-law of Walu. On June 10, 1921, Renai executed a deed of gift of all her husband's property in favour of defendant No. 1(respondent No. 1). Walu who was the next reversioner had consented to this deed of gift, and four days later on June 14, 1921, she executed a deed of consent or manyatapatna (exhibit 87). This document was not registered. More than a year later, on November 10, 1922, Renai adopted plaintiff No. 2, who as the adopted son of Masu sold the suit property to plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs have joined in bringing this suit against defendant No. 1, the son-in-law of Walu, and his alienees to recover possession of the property. Defendant No. 1's contention was that the deed of gift executed by Renai (exh...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Taralakshmi Manuprasad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom499; (1938)40BOMLR1103
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this revision application the material facts are that in the year 1928 an order was made by the City Magistrate of Ahmedabad tinder Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code on an application by the present applicant, who is a wife, for payment of maintenance by the husband to herself and her daughter. On November 28, 1928, a compromise decree order under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, on the application of the wife. The Magistrate, however, in such a case, should make it clear in his order that anything paid under the decree of the civil Court would be taken into account against anything which he may order to be paid. Saraswati Debee v. Narayandas Chatterji I.L.R. (1932) Cal. 1229, distinguished. was passed in a civil suit brought by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights. Under that decree it was provided that a certain sum should be paid for arrears of maintenance and that the husband should pay Rs. 15 a month for maintenance...
Tag this Judgment!Jotiram Dalsukhram Vs. Bai Diwali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom154; (1939)41BOMLR239
Wassoodew, J.1. The question raised by this appeal from the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad relates to the succession to the estate of one Bai Manek, the widow of Somnath Panachand. Bai Manek died childless on June 26, 1933, leaving considerable property which had been devised to her under the will of her husband dated March 26, 1921. It has not been seriously disputed in this appeal that the will conferred an absolute estate on Bai Manek. The following passage in the will which relates to the said devise is in these terms:If God wishes and I die of whatever properties that remain after my death I make my wife Bai Manek its Malek or waras (owner or heir). So the said Manek should after my death take all my properties in her possession in full and independent authority and should out of that perform my twelve months death ceremonies and give after death gifts and dinner as she likes and what remains after that Bai Manek should enjoy or use or sell or mortgage or...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Somabhai Govindbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom484; (1938)40BOMLR1082
Broomfield, J. 1. The accused in this case was convicted of an offence under Section 12(a) of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act (Bom. IV of 1887). The conviction and sentence were set aside on appeal by the Sessions Judge and this is an appeal by Government against the acquittal.2. The accused is a cotton broker working in Surat. He belongs to Bhadran, a village in Baroda territory. He has a house there and visits the place several times a month. When he was travelling by train from Surat to Anand, which is the station for Bhadran, he was arrested at Anand station by a Police Inspector who had received secret information that he was in possession of money and chits relating to wagering or betting; on cotton futures. He was searched and in his pockets were found Rs. 1,(398-4-0 and six chits of the description known as satta chits. On the strength of these chits, which were explained in Court by the Police Inspector and a witness acquainted with the business of speculating in cotton,...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Vinayak Mahadev Habbu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1938
Reported in: AIR1938Bom506; (1938)40BOMLR1099
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal by the Sessions Judge of Kanara of one Vinayak Mahadev Habbu who was convicted of an offence under Section 16 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act. The offence was alleged to consist of a breach of a notification issued by the District Magistrate of Kanara under Rule 21 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules. The notification prohibited the driving on certain roads of the Kanara district of, inter alia, any motor vehicle, private or public, the maximum weight of goods in which exceeds one and a half ton. One of the roads specified in the notification was the Kumta-Hubli road.2. The accused, who owns a bus or lorry, allowed it to be driven on the Kumta-Hubli road carrying a load of 189 maunds which is equivalent to two tons and twenty-nine maunds. There is no dispute about the facts nor is it disputed that the accused acted in contravention of the District Magistrate's notification.3. The defence put forward in the trial Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Moreshwar Phadke Vs. Radhabai Damodar Ranade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom54; (1938)40BOMLR1266
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nasik appointing a receiver of the mortgaged property. The mortgage was a simple mortgage within the meaning of Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act, so that it contained an obligation on the part of the mortgagor to pay the mortgage money and a provision that if the money was not paid, the mortgagee should be at liberty to bring the property to sale. In February 1936, the mortgagee filed a suit to enforce his mortgage, and on December 18, 1936, a preliminary decree was made. The decree provided that in default of payment of the amount found due within a stated period the plaintiff might apply for sale of the mortgaged property. On April 17, 1937, the plaintiff applied for the appointment of a receiver of the mortgaged property, the ground for the appointment being that interest was in arrear and had not been paid for some time and that rates and taxes were also in arrear. In D...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »