Mumbai Court September 1938 Judgments
Gajraj Sheokarandas Vs. Sir Hukamchand Sarupchand, Kt.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-30-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom90; (1939)41BOMLR19
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice, Engineer, which raises the question whether a deposit made by a member of the East India Cotton Association with that Association under their rules is liable1 to attachment. Under the Articles, of Association of the East India Cotton Association every member has to make a deposit, which is liable to forfeiture in certain events, and is also subject to certain liens. Subject to the liability to forfeiture and to the satisfaction of the liens, the deposit with interest is repayable to the member on his ceasing from any cause to be a member, the money being repayable within twelve months with interest. Then Clause 21 of the Articles provides that all moneys received by the Association as deposit shall be deemed to be under the absolute control of the Association. The Association can use the moneys for any of the objects of the Association in the same manner as if the moneys belonged to the Association absolutely....
Tag this Judgment!Lakshman Hari Kanhere Vs. V.G. Virkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-29-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom258; (1939)41BOMLR481
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal in execution proceedings against the order of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Poona. The appellant was the original judgment-debtor and defendant No. 1. The plaintiff had applied for a decree in a suit which was in the nature of a redemption suit and his case was that on taking accounts of the mortgaged property an amount would be found due to him from the mortgagees. A decree was passed in the plaintiff's favour as against defendants Nos. 1 and 2 for a certain amount due by them to the plaintiff under the mortgage. The plaintiff had been declared insolvent and his receiver applied for execution of that decree to recover that amount by attachment and sale of the judgment-debtor's properties situated at Poona. It appears that one house and two cinemas in Poona belonging to the judgment-debtors had been attached and a sum of Rs. 7,500 had been recovered. Thereafter the properties were sought to be sold and notices were issued under Order XXI, Rule 66,...
Tag this Judgment!Madubai Francis Damel Vs. Vadilal Kashidas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-28-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom147; (1939)41BOMLR219
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by some of the defendants against a decree in an administration suit in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit was for the administration of the estate of one deceased Francis Pascol Damal. The principal property which the plaintiffs asked the Court to administer was a debt owed by the deceased to the shop of Kashidas Ambaidas under a promissory note of Rs. 2,401 passed by the deceased Francis on September 18, 1931. This shop of Kashidas Ambaidas was a joint family business and after the promissory note was passed there was a partition among the members constituting that joint family firm and the suit note fell to the share of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2. Originally the suit was brought by these two plaintiffs and the other members of the firm were made defendants along with the heirs of the deceased Francis. Subsequently, however, an application was given and it was granted to transpose the remaining members of the family, who had been impleaded as defendants, ...
Tag this Judgment!Baldeosahai Surajmal and Co. Vs. Radhakishan Joharilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom225; (1939)41BOMLR308
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of Mr. Justice Blackwell. The defendants are pakka adatiyas carrying on business in Bombay and the plaintiffs are upcountry constituents. The facts so far as material to the present appeal can be stated very briefly. The transactions between the parties began in June, 1935. On December 2, 1935, the plaintiffs wrote to the defendants instructing them to apply a double option in respect of ten bars of silver for Posh settlement, and on December 6 the defendants wired to the plaintiffs saying that they had applied nazrana, i.e. double option on ten bars at a premium of Re. 1-4-0 at the rate of Rs. 65-3-0 Posh. Subsequently the defendants denied that they were bound by that telegram and said that it was sent by mistake ; but that case was abandoned in the course of the trial. It is, therefore, established that the plaintiffs bought from the defendants teji mandi or double option on ten bars of silver at the rate of Rs. 65-3-0 ...
Tag this Judgment!Malojirao Narsinghrao Shitole Vs. Keshav Moreshwar Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom126; (1939)41BOMLR215
Broomfield, J.1. The only question in this appeal is one of limitation. The plaintiff-appellant is the deshmukh of a number of villages in the Poona District, and is entitled to certain fees and emoluments out of the revenues of those villages. These are collected for him by people called ajahat gumastas whose office is hereditary. They were either appointed in the first instance or their appointment was confirmed and recognised by the Peshwa's Government, and it was held by the Privy Council in a suit by the plaintiff against one of them named Ekbote that he has no power to remove them and to collect the money for himself : Ramchandra Narsingraj v. Trimbak Nasagar Ekbote (1891) L.R. 19 IndAp 39. The defendants-respondents are some of these gumastas. It appears that they have collected moneys belonging to the plaintiff and have not paid them over, and the plaintiff brought the suit from which this appeal arises to recover the collections made since 1922 with interest. The trial Court h...
Tag this Judgment!G.N. Asundi Vs. Virappa Andaneppa Manvi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom221; (1939)41BOMLR371
Wassoodew, J1. The facts giving rise to these appeals, which raise the same question, so far as a statement thereof is necessary for the present purpose, are briefly these. The appellants Shivappa and Mahadevappa, whose estate is represented by the Court Receiver, had executed certain promissory-notes in favour of the sons of the respondent Virappa. The promisees obtained decrees against them in 1931 which were confirmed in appeal by the High Court on January 24, 1934. Before the result of those appeals, the respondent, the father of the promisees, filed a suit in December, 1933, against the latter for a declaration that he alone had title to the promissory-notes. That suit was terminated by a consent decree on September 24, 1935. The said consent decree recorded the agreement between the parties which, so far as it affected their rights to the decrees on the promissory-notes, was in these terms:There is no objection to grant a declaration and an injunction to the plaintiff in this sui...
Tag this Judgment!Basawantappa Mallapa Bhopalpur Vs. Mallappa Mallappa Bhopalpur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom178; (1939)41BOMLR268
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar granting possession to him of half share only in those properties of the family which were not alienated to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 by the plaintiff's cousin prior to his adoption on January 29, 1934. The plaintiff's claim in the suit related to a half share in the entire properties which were in the possession of his adoptive father and the latter's brother prior to the alienations between 1926 and 19'32. The material facts on which the claim was based are these :- The properties in dispute belonged at one time to one Ayyappa and his brother Basappa and the four sons of the latter by name Mallappa, Shivlingappa, Gadigeppa and Karbasappa. Mallappa and Shivlingappa were born of one wife, and Gadigeppa and Karbasappa of another. It is not known whether the brothers Ayyappa and Basappa were divided. But it appears that after the death of Ayyappa prior to 1896, Basappa gave...
Tag this Judgment!Sanveerangouda Channappagouda Vs. Basangouda Shivangouda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom313; (1939)41BOMLR561
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the respondent to obtain a half share in the suit property together with mesne profits from 1916. His case was that the property originally belonged to one Rudragauda and his cousin Channappagauda. The genealogy of the family is given in the judgment of the trial Court. Rudragauda's great-grandfather was also called Rudragauda. He had two sons, Dodviranagauda and Sannaviranagauda. Dodviranagauda had a son, Sivanagauda, whose son was Rudragauda the adoptive father of the plaintiff. The original ancestor had a son Sannaviranagauda whose son was Channappagauda. Rudragauda, the plaintiff's adoptive father, had two sons, Dodviranagauda and Sannaviranagauda. The younger son Sannaviranagauda went in adoption to Channappagauda, the representative of the other branch, in the year 1897. He was defendant No. 1 in the suit and us the present appellant. The elder son Dodviranagauda died some time in July, 1916.2. The plaintiffs adoptive fat...
Tag this Judgment!Shivappa Narsappa Pujari Vs. Kariyappa Ramappa Donur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom123; (1939)41BOMLR208
Divatia, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by defendant No. 2 in a suit by the plaintiff to recover possession of certain property. The plaintiff is the adopted son of one Ramappa and he has been adopted by his widow Karibasawa in 1921. The suit property belonged to one Sabu who died in 1904 or 1905 leaving a widow named Basawa. This widow was a minor and her guardian sold it in the first instance to one Shivappa in 1905 and the latter in turn sold the same to Mallappa. After1 his; death, the property has been sold by Mallappa's brother to the present defendant No. 2 who is the appellant before us. After the said sale by Basawa's guardian to Shivappa, Basawa remarried in 1906, and as a result the heir to Sabu's estate was the said Karibasawa, the widow of Ramappa who had died before Sabu in 1903. The relationship between Ramappa and Sabu is shown in the following pedigree:Yenkappa______________________________: :Sakreppa Fakirappa____________________ ____________________: : : :Yenkap...
Tag this Judgment!Waman Anant Naik Vs. Chunilal Kasturchand Marwadi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1938
Reported in: AIR1939Bom117; (1939)41BOMLR205
Divatia, J.1. Three points have been urged in this appeal by Mr. Gumaste for the appellant. The first point is that the trial Court erred in law, in not examining the defendant under Section 12 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The defendant is, no doubt, admitted to be an agriculturist, but he gave a purshis, exhibit 131, stating that he had given up all his contentions and the accounts may be taken from 1916 up to the date of suit. The plaintiffs' suit was, no doubt, based on the promissory note passed by the defendant and the latter had urged several grounds with regard to that note. But at a certain stage in the suit he gave up all those grounds, and therefore, as the learned trial Judge remarks, the contentions relating to issues Nos. 2 to 10 having been given up by the defendant by his purshis, he recorded the findings on the other issues. In accordance with the purshis, the Court did appoint a Commissioner to take accounts from 1916. There was no serious objection urged...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »