Mumbai Court June 1939 Judgments
Yeshwant Balkrishna Lagu Vs. Keshav Anant Pandit
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1213
R.S. Broomfield, Ag. C.J.1. The appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal was the plaintiff in the original suit. He is an inamdar of the village of Kudave. It appears that there are some co-sharers in the inam. He brought a suit for a declaration that he is the owner of certain land, and to recover possession of the land in case it should be found that it is in the possession of the defendants. The land in suit consists of three plots which have been described as plots W, X and Y. We are no longer concerned with plot W as the plaintiff's claim to that was disallowed and he did not take cross-objections in the appeal before Mr. Justice Macklin. As regards the other two plots X and Y, it has been held that they were leased to the defendants by the plaintiff in 1898 and the following years, that there was a lease in 1909 for five years and that after 1914 the defendants ceased to be tenants. They claimed to have acquired ownership by adverse possession, but the lower Courts have held adver...
Tag this Judgment!Hari Chand Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1939
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR138
Macmillan, J.1. Their Lordships are invited in these twelve consolidated appeals to reconsider a number of awards made by way of compensation for the acquisition by the Government of certain bungalows in the Cantonment of Peshawar. In the Courts below a large number of questions were raised and debated in relation to the awards, but before their Lordships, Mr. Dunne, on behalf of the appellants, confined himself to two or three main issues.2. As a matter of history the cantonments are regulated, so far as regards grants to individuals, by an Order of the Governor-General in Council dated so far back as 1836. That Order appears to have been carried forward to date by a. series of subsequent Orders more or less identical in their terms. Where the Government grant any rights to individuals within the area of the cantonments, one of the cardinal conditions of the grant is that the Government retain the power of resumption at any time on giving one month's notice. If they give that notice, ...
Tag this Judgment!Yeshwant Balkrishna Lagu Vs. Keshav Anant Pandit and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-30-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom13
Broomfield, Ag. C.J.1. The appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal was the plaintiff in the original suit. He is an inamdar of the village of Kudave. It appears that there are some cosharers in the inam. He brought a suit for a declaration that he is the owner of certain land, and to recover possession of the land in case it should be found that it is in the possession of the defendants. The land in suit consists of three plots which have been described as plots W, X and Y. We are no longer concerned with plot W as the plaintiff's claim to that was disallowed and he did not take cross-objections in the appeal before Macklin J. As regards the other two plots X and Y, it has been held that they were leased to the defendants by the plaintiff in 1898 and the following years, that there was a lease in 1909 for five years and that after 1914 the defendants ceased to be tenants. They claimed to have acquired ownership by adverse possession, but the lower Courts have held adverse possession no...
Tag this Judgment!Gafur Walad Usman Vaghu Mapari Vs. Sakharam Tanshet Narkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1199
Lokur, J.1. This appeal raises an interesting question regarding the power of a transferee of a khoti land from its permanent tenant after it was mortgaged to another to redeem that mortgage.2. The lands in dispute are non-transferable Kularag khoti holdings, and some members of the Narkar family were their permanent tenants. They mortgaged them to one Sakhubai on March 13, 1907, for a period of twenty years. Sakhubai assigned her mortgagee rights to the defendants' predecessor-in-title in 1912. The defendants are now in the actual possession of the lands as mortgagees. The plaintiff purchased the lands from the permanent tenants on April 19, 1932, and filed this suit against the defendants for the redemption of the mortgage of 1907. Defendant No. 1 contended that as the transfer of the lands by the permanent tenants was made without the consent of the khots, it was void and did not confer any interest upon the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs not being agriculturists, they were not ent...
Tag this Judgment!Ganpat Gatlu Vs. Navnitlal Ranchhoddas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom30; (1939)41BOMLR1204
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of West Khandesh setting aside the trial Court's order dismissing as time-barred the respondents' application under Section 144 of the Civil Procedure Code for restitution. He has remanded the case for decision thereof on the merits. The question raised in this appeal is one of limitation and it arises in this way. The plaintiff purchased in 1918 about one hundred mango trees in execution of a mortgage decree of 1910. As he found difficulty in recovering possession owing to obstruction by certain persons who claimed title to the trees, in 1921 he instituted an action for possession against those persons. Among them was one Jamnabai who claimed certain number of mango trees from a large cluster as purchaser from the mortgagor's daughter who had sold them as being outside the specific trees mortgaged. In 1924 a decree was passed in the plaintiff's favour. In execution he succeeded in obtaining possession of eighty mang...
Tag this Judgment!Nana Namdeo Patil Vs. Dalpat Supadu Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom33; (1939)41BOMLR1208
Lokur, J.1. The plaintiff's father Supadu had passed two promissory notes in favour of defendant No. 1 in 1919, one for Rs. 500 and the other for Rs. 200. After Supadu's death in 1920, his brother Shenfadu passed a promissory note for Rs. 800 in favour of defendant No. 1 in 1922 in satisfaction of Supadu's promissory notes. In renewal of that promissory note the plaintiff's mother Zumkabai passed two promissory notes of Rs. 400 each in favour of defendant No. 1 in 1924, In 1928 Zumkabai, acting as the guardian of her minor son, the plaintiff, and defendant No. 1 referred the dispute regarding the promissory notes to arbitration, and the arbitrator gave his award on October 17, 1928. On the next day defendant No. 1 presented the award in Court to have it filed. His application to have the award filed was registered as suit No. 846 of 1928. On the same day the plaintiffs mother Zumkabai appeared in Court and gave her consent to the award being filed. A decree was accordingly passed in te...
Tag this Judgment!Narhar Sonajee Jahagirdar Vs. Trimbak Shridhar Jahagirdar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom12; (1939)41BOMLR1174
Lokur, J.1. The appellant is one of the co-sharers of the inam village of Shindi Digar, his share being annas 3 and 9 3/7 pies. The respondent and one Gopal Shankar are the managing inamdars of the village. The inam-dars of the village are said to be alienees of land revenue. The plaintiff is said to be a co-sharer who is recognized in the khatavani as holding a share of annas 3 and 9 3/7 pies. The village land revenue is recovered by the village officers and then distributed among the different sharers according to the shares as entered! in the village khatavani. The respondent holds certain lands for which he has to pay Rs. 16-13-3 as land revenue every; year. He did not pay the assessment for the year 1928-29, and the plaintiff filed this suit to recover his share in that amount together with interest thereon by way of damages. Both the lower Courts upheld the respondent's contention that the plaintiff was not entitled to file a suit directly against a khatedar tenant to recover his...
Tag this Judgment!Dattatraya Chandraya Bachuwar Vs. K.L. Bawachekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom51; (1939)41BOMLR1258
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a second appeal against the decision of the Assistant Judge of Sholapur confirming an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur under Sections 53 and 54 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. The petitioner in the application, who was the receiver of the estate of certain insolvents, applied for setting aside a sale-deed passed by the| insolvents to the opponent, the present appellant, on December 15, 1930, alleging that the sale by the insolvents which had been made within two years of the insolvency was not bona fide and for valuable consideration, but was hollow and fraudulent, and intended to defraud other creditors. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the opponent was not a bona fide purchaser for value and that the sale was a fraudulent one and intended to give preference to the opponent and to defraud other creditors, and it therefore set aside the sale. This order was confirmed1 in appeal by the Assistant Judge, and the opponent has...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnaya Parbhaya Chintalwar Vs. Meghraj Paparam Teli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom10; (1939)41BOMLR1170
Lokur, J.1. The appellants' father, Parbhaya, mortgaged two houses to the respondent for Rs. 1,800 in 1919. One of those houses was old municipal No. 8425. The respondent then filed a suit (suit No. 194 of 1929) to recover the mortgage amount by the sale of the mortgaged houses. In the interval a city survey had taken place, and old municipal No. 8425 and two open sites, old municipal Nos. 8426 and 8428, were all included in city survey No. 8012 (new municipal No. 249). In the plaint in the suit the houses mortgaged were described as city survey No. 8012-old municipal No. 8425, new municipal No. 249. It seems to have escaped the notice of the parties that city survey No. 8012 (new municipal No. 249) comprised two other properties besides old municipal No. 8425 which had been mortgaged with the respondent. A decree was eventually passed in which the properties as described in the plaint were ordered to be sold for the realization of the mortgage amount.2. The respondent presented darkha...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Kanayalal Mohanlal Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1939
Reported in: AIR1939Bom455; (1939)41BOMLR977
R.S. Broomfield, Ag. C.J.1. This is an application for revision by one Kanayalal Gujar against his conviction under Section 266 of the Indian Penal Code of the offence of being in possession of a false weight or measure known toi be false with the intention that the same may be fraudulently used. The conviction was by the First Class Magistrate of Junnar, and it was confirmed on appeal by the Sessions Judge of Poona.2. The learned advocate, who appears for the applicant, contends, in the first place, that the measures used in this case were not false within the meaning of Section 266, and, in the second place, that a fraudulent intention has not been established.3. The facts are very simple. The accused is a Sawkar and he deals in hirda. He had purchased a quantity of about sixteen maunds of hirda from one Savleram, and he got the hirda measured by means of two measures called adhotis. The measurement was made by Savleram the vendor himself with the assistance of another person. The ad...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »