Mumbai Court March 1939 Judgments
Narbheramji Gyaniramji Ramsnehi Vs. Vivekramji Bhagatramji Ramsnehi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom425; (1939)41BOMLR939
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad. The only point argued on the appeal is one of limitation, and it arises in this way.2. The plaintiff is suing to recover the Ramsnehi Sampradaya temple at Ahmedabad, which is in the possession of the defendant. The plaintiff claims as the successor of Snehiramji, who founded the religious institution to which this temple belongs. There are three Ramdwars belonging to the institution,-one at Surat, one at Baroda and one at Ahmedabad. The Ramdwar at Surat is the headquarters, where the plaintiff resides, and, according to the plaintiff's case, the Ramdwar at Ahmedabad is managed by the defendant as his agent. On the other hand, the defendant contends that he is the mahant of the Ahmedabad Ramdwar in his own right, and the plaintiff has no interest therein. The learned Judge framed issues dealing with the title to the Ahmedabad Ramdwar, and held that the plaintiff had established his title as t...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Dinkar Krishnalal Mehta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom364; (1939)41BOMLR557
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are three references made by the Sessions Judge of Ahmedabad. The accused were convicted by the Additional City Magistrate, F.C., Ahmedabad, under Section 68(c) of the Bombay District Police Act, 1890, the charges against them being that they had led a procession in the streets of Ahmedabad without taking out a pass as required by Rule 1 made under Section 48(1)(a) of the Bombay District Police Act. The learned Sessions Judge was of opinion that the rules made by the District Superintendent of Police for breach of which the accused had been convicted were ultra vires and not justified by the terms of Section 48(1)(a).2. Section 48(1)(a) provides that the District Superintendent or an Assistant or Deputy Superintendent may make rules for and direct the conduct of and behaviour or action of persons constituting assemblies and processions and moving crowds or assemblages on or along the streets, and prescribe, in the case of processions, the routes by whic...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Bhagwati Vs. Musammat Ram Kali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1028
Porter, J.1. The plaintiff and the defendant in this appeal are the widows of two brothers, the appellant of Sagar Mal and the respondent of Kirpa Ram. The brothers were the sons of Janki Kuar, who died in 1918, and the title under which the property was held by the brothers is in dispute. Kirpa Ram died on March 10, 1924, leaving the respondent as his widow. Sagar Mal died on March 18, 1924, leaving the appellant as his widow. If the property which prior to their death was admittedly enjoyed fay both the brothers was held as joint family property, the appellant as widow of the last survivor would be entitled to the estate. If, on the other hand, as was claimed by the respondent, the property was held by the brothers as tenants-in-common, it would pass to the two widows in equal shares.2. The appellant asserted that the property was joint family property and by Hindu law the whole passed to her. The respondent on her part maintained that the property was held by the brothers as tenants...
Tag this Judgment!Mahant Singh Vs. U Ba Yi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR742
Porter, J.1. The facts in this case can be shortly stated. The plaintiff, who is a building contractor, was employed by the four trustees of a pagoda known as the Kyaikasan Pagoda. The terms of the employment are set out in a written agreement dated January 1, 1933, and expressed to be made between the Board of the Kyaikasan Pagoda Trustees and the appellant. It is signed by the appellant and each of the trustees. The respondent was trustee of the estate of a lady called Daw Dwe who had left certain property for charitable purposes. He was not a party to the contract but had orally guaranteed its due performance by the trustees, and in Burma such a guarantee is binding though it is not in writing. The appellant fulfilled his contract, and there was due to him a sum of Rs. 2,6,082-8-6, less, as the learned trial Judge found, a sum of Rs. 158, which had not been paid. The appellant thereupon instituted the present action on May 21, 1934, in the High Court in its original jurisdiction, cl...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Ibrahim Singapori Vs. the Collector of Surat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom447; (1939)41BOMLR934
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are a series of civil revision applications, which all raise the same point and are directed to a single judgment given by the learned District Judge of Surat.2. The facts are not quite the same in all the applications, but in the first application, which is No. 167 of 1938, the facts are that there is a wakf, the mutwallis of which reside within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Surat District Court, but the whole of the property of the wakf, which consists of immoveable property and shares, is situate in Burma. The shares are shares in companies registered in Rangoon, and the general rule is that the local situation of a share is the place where the share can be transferred on the register of the company. As far as the evidence goes, there is nothing to sug-gest that these Rangoon companies have any office within the Surat District at which their shares can be transferred. So that, we deal with the application on the footing that the whole of the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›