Mumbai Court November 1939 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Lala Ram Sarup Vs. the Court of Wards
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR307
George Rankin, J.1. The appellant Lala Ram Sarup and respondent No. 4, Lala Alopi Parshad, (herein called the plaintiffs), brought the suit out of which this appeal arises in the Court of the District Judge at Delhi on October 16, 1928. The suit was brought upon an agreement of a champertous nature dated October 2, 1920, and made between the plaintiffs and one Saleem Mahomed Shah. Saleem had since January 26, 1920, been suing in the Court of the District Judge at Delhi to establish his legitimacy as son to Shahzada Mirza, Souriya Jah of the Moghul dynasty, who had died in 1913 possessed of considerable property. Besides Saleem, Souriya had left him surviving two widows and two daughters. The Court of Wards had in 1913 taken over his whole estate as belonging to these female heirs, giving a compassionate allowance to Saleem as a temporary measure. It had been decided by the Chief Commissioner that the Court of Wards should not upon its own responsibility recognise Saleem as entitled to ...
Virbhadrayya Nagayya Shivappanmath Vs. Basangowda Mudigowda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR279
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Dharwar, and it raises a question whether the assignee of a lease in this country is liable by privity of estate to the payment of rent to the lessor. The lease in question was granted on January 6, 1926, by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1, the term being forty years. On April 1, 1931, the interest of defendant No. 1 under the lease was sold in execution proceedings to defendant No. 2, who is the present appellant. The sale was confirmed on April 9, 1934, and the certificate was granted on April 14, 1934. This suit was started on December 22, 1936, and in it rent is claimed for six years against both the lessee and the appellant as assignee of the lease. The appellant contends, in the first place, that the doctrine of liability of an assignee of a lease by virtue of privity of estate has no application in this country. The question was discussed by a full bench of this Court in Keshavlal Tribho...
Satish Chandra Giri Vs. Dharnidhar Singha Roy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-03-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR295
M.R. Jayakar, J.1. These two appeals are against a decree dated July 6, and August 24, 1934, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, modifying a preliminary decree dated November 6, 1929, of the Court of the District Judge of Hoogly. The suit in which the decrees were passed was instituted under Section 92 of the Code Civil Procedure, 1908, by certain persons claiming to be interested in the administration of the shrine of Sri Taraknath near Calcutta, against one Satish Chandra Giri, the appellant in the main appeal (No. 29 of 1934) (hereinafter called the appellant), who was described as the shebait or mahant of the said shrine.2. The shrine of Taraknath, though sometimes referred to in the present proceedings as a math, is in reality a temple containing an idol called Sri Taraknathji. Its origin is lost in antiquity. The High Court of Calcutta has in its judgment traced its history back to 1747 a.d., and therei is no doubt that it is a very ancient public, religious and charitab...
Emperor Vs. Ibrahim Haji Abdul Rahiman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR161
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction under Section s 4(a) and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act. The appeal raises a question which has become rather common in these gambling cases -the question being as to the rights of the accused over the passage in which the gambling took place.2. The facts are not really in dispute. The accused occupies a room on the second floor of a certain building, and he was found by the police, with accused No. 2, in a passage on the ground floor of that building. He was writing something on a piece of paper and talking with accused No. 2, and on search of the passage certain instruments of gaming were found in the passage. The first question which arises is whether he was guilty under Section 4(a) of the Gambling Act as being a person who was the owner or occupier or had the use of the place where instruments of gaming were found;, that is to say the passage, which is no doubt a place within the meaning...
Gangadhar Dhanjishet Marwadi and Supdusing Daulatsing Patil Vs. Balwan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom210; (1940)42BOMLR367
Broomfield, J.1. These are two companion Letters Patent appeals in a case decided by Mr. Justice Wassoodew. The material facts are briefly as follows :-One Supdu obtained a decree in a mortgage suit in execution of which some property belonging to the judgment-debtor was brought to sale in April, 1932, and purchased by one Gangadhar Marwadi. The decree was assigned to Supdu's pleader Deshmukh, but there was a dispute between them as to whether the assignment affected the whole decree. In June, 1932, Supdu appointed another pleader Bendre to represent him, and on October 7, 1932, Deshmukh applied, to have his name substituted for that of the decree-holder in the execution proceedings, but this application was not prosecuted and no order was passed on it. In the meanwhile the judgment-debtor had made an application to set aside the sale. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on December 16, 1932, and it was ordered that the purchase-money should be paid to the plaintiff, i.e....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›