Mumbai Court April 1939 Judgments
Shivu Shidda Chaugula Vs. Lakhmichand Tuljaram Kothari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom496; (1939)41BOMLR1007
Sen, J.1. The appellants were plaintiffs in a suit for a declaration that the plaint property was not liable for attachment and sale in execution of a money decree obtained by the predecessor-in-title of the defendant, in suit No. 493 of 1923, against their mother Avubai as the heir and legal representative of their deceased father Krishna Joti, and also for an injunction against the defendant.2. The material facts are as follows. Krishna Joti died in May, 1922, leaving his widow, Avubai, and two daughters, who are the plaintiffs. One Anantrao brought suit No. 493 of 1923 on two promissory notes passed by Krishna Joti for the recovery of the amount due there under from the estate of the deceased in the hands of the widow. During the pungency of the suit Avubai executed a deed of surrender (exhibit 54) in the plaintiffs' favour on July 1, 1924, in respect of the whole estate of her husband. Suit No. 493 of 1923 ended in a compromise decree passed on October 25, 1924, under which Avubai ...
Tag this Judgment!The Surat Borough Municipality Vs. Sarifa Karunnissa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom494; (1939)41BOMLR1002
Lokur, J.1. These two second appeals arise out of two companion suits, one filed by the wife and the other by the husband, for a refund of the amounts of municipal taxes said to have been unlawfully recovered by the Surat Borough Municipality under warrants of distress, and paid by them under protest. In appeal No. 685 of 1937, the respondent was sent a bill for Rs. 105-5-8 on August 6, 1934, including Rs. 101-9-8, as arrears from the year 1923. In appeal No. 686 of 1937, the respondent was sent a bill for Rs. 160-14-0 on the same day, including Rs. 150-6-0, for arrears from the-year 1924. Both the respondents made applications to the Municipality protesting against the bills, and as distress warrants were issued against them, they paid the amounts under protest, and filed these suits to recover the amounts which were in excess of the amounts due for six years prior to the bills, on the ground that arrears more than six years old were time-barred, and that the Municipality had no right...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotalal Panachand Vs. the Borough Municipality of Nadiad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom501; (1939)41BOMLR1097
Lokur, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration of his title to the land under and in front of Marudia Khadki in Kovada Pole and the Chowk in front of his house and the room in Nadiad, and for a permanent injunction restraining the Nadiad Borough Municipality from obstructing him in the enjoyment of his said site as its owner. The defendant Municipality contended that the plaintiff was not the owner of the site of the Khadki at the time of the City Survey Enquiry in the year 1916, the Khadki having been declared to be a public street, and the plaintiff's suit having been time-barred as it was not filed within one year after the decision of the City Survey Enquiry Officer. The trial Court framed two preliminary issues as to whether the suit was bad for want of necessary parties, and whether the suit was not in time as contended by the defendant Municipality; and it recorded findings in the affirmative on both the issues and dismissed the suit...
Tag this Judgment!Ningappa Neelappa Katti Vs. Adiveppa Shivappa Tuppad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom468; (1939)41BOMLR997
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge at Dharwar in special darkhast No. 60 of 1937 ordering rateable distribution under Section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code. The respondent obtained a decree in suit No. 73 of 1934 in the Court of the First Glass Subordinate Judge at Dharwar and presented this darkhast for its execution. One Manekchand filed a suit No. 623 of 1932 against the appellant in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Gadag and obtained a money decree. He presented darkhast No. 240 of 1936 to recover the decretal amount by the attachment and sale of the appellant's property. The property was duly attached and was to be sold by auction on August 31, 1937. The claim in the darkhast was Rs. 6,000 and odd and on August 28, 1937, three days before the date fixed for the sale, the appellant made an application, to the executing Court at Gadag requesting that he was prepared to pay Rs. 3,000 in Court for being paid to...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›