Mumbai Court February 1939 Judgments
Emperor Vs. Nathalal Vanmali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom339; (1939)41BOMLR548
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of the accused in appeal by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad of offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887, for which they had been convicted and sentenced by the trial Magistrate.2. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are partners in business. Accused No. 3 is their servant, and the other accused are constituents. On April 18, 1936, the police raided the business premises of accused Nos. 1 and 2, which premises are situate opposite the American Cotton Exchange of Ahmedabad. In the raid certain books and documents were seized, and it is suggested that those books and documents are instruments of gaming, and, therefore, since the raid took place under Section 6 of the Act, a presumption arises under Section 7 that the premises raided were used as a common gaming-house. The documents seized, however, are not on the face of them instruments of gaming, and the learned Governme...
Tag this Judgment!Krishna Vitnak Mahar Vs. Shankar Krishna Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom419; (1939)41BOMLR863
Lokur, J.1.The only question arising in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs' suit for an account of a mortgage under Section 15D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists Relief Act is maintainable. The plaintiffs' grandfather Yesnak and his three brothers mortgaged their joint family property for a period of twenty years on May 11, 1865, each of the four brothers having a one-fourth share in the property. The plaintiffs' grandfather Yesnak had three sons, Devnak, Vitnak and Ratannak. The plaintiffs and defendant No. 5 Jiva are the sons of Vitnak, and Gourya is the son of Ratannak. On July 2, 1901, Devnak, on his own behalf and as guardian of Gourya, passed a sale-deed in favour of the mortgagee, purporting to convey the one-fourth share of Yesnak in the equity of redemption. The plaintiffs and defendant No. 5 were then minors, but their names were not mentioned in the sale-deed (exhibit 47). The plaintiffs, therefore, brought this suit for an account of the mortgage so far as their one-twelfth ...
Tag this Judgment!Parawa Sangappa Vs. Rayangouda Chandramappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom401; (1939)41BOMLR841
Lokur, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for an account of a mortgage under Section 15D of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The plaintiff executed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1 and Hirenna, the father of defendants Nos. 2 and 5, purporting to convey his land survey No. 76 for Rs. 1,000 on June 21, 1928. He alleged that he received only Rs. 600 as the consideration of the sale-deed and that the transaction was really a mortgage. The trial Court held that the consideration of the sale-deed was Rs. 1,000 and that the transaction was an absolute sale and not a mortgage. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court allowed him to examine his brother-in-law Kallappa to prove what the real consideration of the sale-deed was, and, after considering all the evidence, it held that the consideration was only Rs. 600, that the mortgagees did not take possession of the land, that the consideration was grossly inadeq...
Tag this Judgment!Narottamdas Bhagwandas Vs. Chitta Bhagwansang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom464; (1939)41BOMLR896
Lokur, J.1. Bhagwansang Himatsang, the father of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, was indebted to the plaintiff, and after his death, when his sons were still minors, one Somabhai, as their de facto guardian, settled the dues and passed a bond in favour of the plaintiff on June 11, 1929. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover Rs. 717-5-9 due under that bond. He alleged that defendant No. 3 had signed the bond as a surety, and was also liable for the debt. By that time defendant No. 1 had attained majority, and he admitted the plaintiff's claim. But the Nazir, who was appointed the guardian ad litem of defendant No. 2, stated that he had no instructions. Defendant No. 3, who was the real contesting party, contended that the debt for which he had passed the bond in suit was time-barred, and, therefore, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were not bound to satisfy the band, that he himself was not a surety and that, assuming that he was a surety, he was not liable since the bond itself was not binding on d...
Tag this Judgment!Raichand Gulabchand Accha Vs. the Secretary of State for India
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom505; (1939)41BOMLR1077
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Thana. The question raised is whether in view of the character of the construction of the two godowns on the plaintiff-appellant's agricultural land in Bhilad, the latter has rendered himself liable for the payment of the full rates of non-agricultural assessment for the land on which they were erected, irrespective of the actual use to which they were put by him. The plaintiff alleged that although at the time of building those godowns he intended to let them out for storing grass to others, as there was no demand; for such godowns ever since he built them, he had stored in them his own grass cut from his own varkas fields in order eventually to export the same to the market for sale. It was expressly admitted that only the grass cut by the plaintiff from his own fields has always been stored by him in those godowns, and both the Courts below have held that the grass so stored belonged to the plaintiff an...
Tag this Judgment!Ulagalum Perumal Sethurayar Vs. Rani Subbulakshmi Nachiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR718
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal concerns the succession to the impartible estate of Urkad in the district of Tinnevelly, and is brought from a decree dated March 19, 1935, of the High Court of Madras affirming, upon the question now in dispute, the decree (April 23, 1931) of the Principal Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly. Both Courts in India have held that, upon the death in 1929 of Minakshi Sundara, the estate of Urkad devolved upon his widow Rani Subbulakshmi Nachiar who was plaintiff in the suit and is respondent upon this appeal. The appellant is Ulagalum Perumal, the younger half-brother of Minakshi Sundara, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit. It is not now contended that the appellant and Minakshi Sundara were divided. The trial Court held that there had been a partition of the partible property of the joint family, but this finding was reversed by the High Court and is not appealed from.2. In 1902, the zemindar was Section Kotilinga Sethurayar (hereinafter called the settlor) a...
Tag this Judgment!Laxman Manjunathaya Balwalli Vs. Venkatrao Mangeshrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom386; (1939)41BOMLR836
Lokur, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs to recover their share in the monies realized by the defendants on behalf of all of them. The plaintiffs and the minor defendants were members of a joint Hindu family, and by a compromise decree in the year 1925 they partitioned the joint family property among themselves. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4 were allotted one-fourth share, plaintiffs Nos. 5 and 6 three-eighths share, and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 three-eighths share. One other property, situated in the village of Hosakuli, had been purchased by the family, and as the vendor had filed a suit under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act alleging that the sale was a mortgage, the decree provided that that property should be left undivided until the termination of the said litigation. The part of the decree which dealt with that property ran as follows:As there is litigation going on in respect of the property of the village Hosakuli, it is retained in common and ...
Tag this Judgment!Baliram Narayan Naik Vs. Sakharam Ramji Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom250; (1940)42BOMLR423
Lokur, J.1. The point in this appeal is simple. The appellants' shop by name 'Baliram Narayan Naik' obtained a money decree against the respondents for Rs. 4,995 and costs on July 24, 1924. During the pendency of that suit some property of the respondents had been attached before judgment, and the attachment was ordered to continue by the decree. The appellants presented a darkhast No. 830 of 1924 to execute the decree for recovering the decretal amount by the sale of the attached property. The respondents tendered Rs. 1,000 and were allowed to satisfy the decree by annual instalments beginning from January 31, 1927. The attachment of the respondents' property was allowed to continue with their consent, and the darkhast was disposed of on December 23, 1925. It was ordered that in case of two defaults the entire balance of the decretal amount then in time should be recovered at once. Thereafter the appellant presented darkhast No. 230 of 1931 to recover the balance of the decretal amoun...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Raja Vyricherla Narayana Gajapatiraju Bahadur Garu Vs. the Revenue ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR725
Romer, J.1. This appeal is concerned with the question of what is the proper sum to be awarded to the appellant by way of compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition by the Vizagapatam Harbour Authority of certain land of his adjoining the Harbour, the respondent being the representative of such authority for the purposes of this appeal. The circumstances in which the land was acquired are as follows.2. The Vizagapatam Harbour, the construction of which appears to have been begun in the year 1920, was formed by making excavations in swampy land situate to the south-west of the town of Vizagapatam and by dredging a deep water channel in the creek to the south of that town that led from the swampy land into the Bay of Bengal. On the south of the land acquired by the Harbour Authority for the purpose of these works is situated the property of the appellant known as the Lova Gardens. These gardens are formed by a valley which runs down from high ground on the south-west to low gr...
Tag this Judgment!Gurappa Bhimanna Chidguppi Vs. Madwalappa Ramchandrappa Dumane
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom392; (1939)41BOMLR832
Lokur, J.1. This second appeal is filed against a personal decree passed against the appellant for the recovery of the deficit, out of a mortgage decree passed against him, that remained due after the sale of the mortgaged property. The appellant mortgaged his property to the deceased father of the respondents for Rs. 2,500, on February 23, 1923, agreeing to repay that amount within one year. The respondents filed suit No. 445 of 1931, on February 23, 1931, to recover the amount due under the mortgage-deed by the sale of the mortgaged property, and the deficit from the appellant in person. The usual mortgage decree was passed on November 23, 1931, which reserved to the respondents liberty to apply for a personal decree if the sale-proceeds from the mortgaged property be found insufficient, provided such claim for a personal decree was 'legally admissible.' In execution of that decree the mortgaged property was duly sold and the sale-proceeds fell short by Rs. 888-6-6. The respondents t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »