Mumbai Court November 1940 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.
Govindnaik Gurunathnaik Kalghatgi Vs. Basawannewa Parutappa Karajgi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom203; (1941)43BOMLR329
Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the Assistant Judge of Dharwar, which raises a question of limitation.2. The material facts are that there was a mortgage passed in 1920, which became vested in plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, plaintiff No. 2 being a minor. They filed a suit to enforce the mortgage, plaintiff No. 1 being the next friend of plaintiff No. 2. On February 20, 1925, a preliminary decree was passed, and an application for a final decree could have been made at any time after August 20, 1925. In January, 1927, plaintiff No. 1 died, and no next friend of plaintiff No. 2 was appointed. The result was that under Order XXXII, Rule 10, of the Civil Procedure Code, all further proceedings in the suit were stayed for the time being. Plaintiff No. 2 attained his majority on April 12, 1933, and he died on September 13 in the same year. The applicant was adopted by the widow of plaintiff No. 1 in June, 1933, and in July, 1934, applied, as legal representative and hei...
Vishvanath Vithalsa Zad Vs. Balaram Anandram Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-13-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR325
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal from the First Class Subordinate Judge of Poona raising a question in execution in a case falling within the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879.2. The material facts are that in 1931 there was a mortgage decree against the judgment-debtor, the present appellant, for Rs. 12,000, and a decree was passed on the basis that he was not an agriculturist, and in 1932 his property was sold for appreciably less than the amount due. In 1934 the creditor obtained a personal decree against the judgment-debtor for the balance, and on January 19, 1935, the present darkhast was issued asking for attachment and sale of the immoveable property of the judgment-debtor, and on February 9, 1935, an order was made for the attachment of the immoveable property. The judgment-debtor on that occasion maintained that he was an agriculturist, having become so since the date of the decree; but it was held against him that both on the date of the decree, May 29, 1934, an...
Babamiya MohidIn Shakkar Vs. Jehangir Dinshaw Belgaumwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom339; (1941)43BOMLR553
B.J. Wadia, J.1. Plaintiffs have filed this suit as mortgagors against the defendant who is the present mortgagee of an immoveable property situate at Chimna Butcher Street, Bombay, to restrain the defendant by an order and injunction of the Court from selling the property on the ground that the proposed sale which was advertised for September 18 last was wrongful and not in accordance with the terms of the mortgage. The original mortgage deed dated May 31, 1935, was made between plaintiff No. 1 as the sole executor of his father's will along with plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and one Bai Zohrabai, the heirs of plaintiff No. 1's father, as mortgagors on the one hand and Rahim Premji Parpia and Habib Rahim Parpia as mortgagees to secure repayment of the sum of Rs. 7,500 lent and advanced by the mortgagees. Zohrabai died about March 3, 1936, and the plaintiffs are her only heirs and legal representatives according to the Mahomedan law. By an indenture of transfer of mortgage dated January 22, ...
The Vita Municipality Vs. Gangaram Tatyaji Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom184; (1941)43BOMLR333
N.J. Wadia, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the Second Class Magistrate, Khanapur, under Section 86 of the Bombay District Municipal Act (Bom. III of 1901). The petitioner, the Vita Municipality, issued a notice of demand against the opponent in respect of a Municipal claim for house-tax and water-tax under Section 82 of the Bombay District Municipal Act. The opponent appealed to the Second Class Magistrate, Khanapur, against the notice of demand under Section 86 and the learned Magistrate reduced the tax from Rs. 12 to Rs. 10. Against that order the Municipality has applied in revision.2. A preliminary objection is raised by Mr. Kane for the opponent that no revision application lies. His contention is that under Section 86 of the Act the Magistrate to whom the appeal was made was a persona designata, and against his decision no appeal or revision application would lie to this Court. The section provides that appeals against any notice of demand issued...
Maharaja Sris Chandra Nandy Vs. Rakhalananda Thakur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR794
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal who affirmed a decree of the Additional District Judge 24 Parganas in favour of the plaintiffs, the present respondents. The plaintiffs are a distinguished family of Brahmin priests, Thakurs of Shrikhanda: and their claim is for a declaration that they are entitled to a charge on the Kasimbazar Raj Estate represented by the defendants for an annual britti of 4,000 rupees payable by half-yearly instalments and for a money decree for arrears amounting to Rs. 13,260. The defences to the suit are in substance that the plaintiffs never had a legal right to the britti, and that in any event it was not charged upon the estate. These issues were raised in the proceedings and have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs in both Courts. The history of the claim begins with the founder of the Raj fortunes one Krishna Kanta Nandy. He appears to have been a Hindu of comparatively humble origin who by his abil...
FidahusseIn Kaderbhai Vs. Tyabally Mulla Eusufally
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-11-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom307; (1941)43BOMLR622
Kania, J.1. This suit is filed by the plaintiff to obtain a declaration that a deed of trust dated October 29, 1895, is void and inoperative, that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 who are the present trustees and holders of the property be ordered to deliver up the property and the deed for cancellation and to render an account of their management of the property. The plaint recites that on October 29, 1895, one Abdulhusein, who was a Shia Mahomedan, executed the deed in question. That deed is annexed to the plaint. According to the plaintiff it is a deed of wakf. The purport of that deed is set out in para. 3 of the plaint. The first object was to pay the income to the settlor during his lifetime. It is contended in the plaint that as the settlor was a Shia Mahomedan the deed was therefore void. The settlor died on June 7, 1897. In para. 7 of the plaint it is stated as follows:The plaintiff says that after the death of the said Abdulhusein Issoobbhai the trustees under the said deed of trust pa...
Ramabai Shriniwas Nadgir Vs. the Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom144; (1941)43BOMLR232
John Beaumont, C.J.1. These are two cross appeals against an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar. An order was made by the Privy Council in certain litigation that costs should be paid by the defendants, who were the Secretary of State for India, and defendants NOB. 1 to 3 in this suit, or their predecessors. The Secretary of State for India ultimately paid those costs in full, and then he filed this suit to recover contribution from his co-defendants, and a decree was passed on November 26, 1934, directing contribution. In the case of defendant No. 3, it had been stated by an amendment of the plaint that the original defendant had died, and his son defendant No. 3 was held to be liable to the extent of the property he got inherited from his father. The Secretary of State for India then took out the present darkhast in order to execute the decree against the three defendants. The contention of all the defendants was that the lands sought to be attached were watan...
In Re: Tulsidas Amanmal Karani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom228; (1941)43BOMLR250
Broomfield, J.1. This is an application to the High Court in its disciplinary jurisdiction made by the Advocate General of Bombay in the matter of Tulsidas Amanmal Karani, an attorney of this Court.2. The material facts are as follows: In January, 1931, a suit was filed in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay by certain plaintiffs, whose names are not material, against one Choithram Bharmal for the recovery of Rs. 120 for rent. The suit came on for hearing on February 24, 1931, before Mr. S.E. Kurwa, a Judge of the said Court of Small Causes, and an ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. On August 11, 1931, the plaintiffs issued a notice against one Bharmal Tilokchand, the father of the defendant in the suit, to show cause why his name should not be brought on record as the real defendant and why the decree should not be amended under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, and why execution should not be issued against him. The allegation was that Bharmal had occupied...
Vithaldas Bhagvandas Darbar Vs. Tukaram Vithoba Kshatri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom153; (1941)43BOMLR225
Broomfield, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decree of the District Judge of Bijapur confirming a decree of the Joint Subordinate Judge of Bijapur, who dismissed a suit brought by the plaintiff for reimbursement or contribution.2. The plaintiff's claim was put forward in the following circumstances. One Ramappa who was the father of defendant No. 1 was the owner of four fields, survey Nos. 5/2, 381, 382 and 124. In October-November, 1927, Ramappa borrowed Rs. 1,000 from Government under the Land Improvement Loans Act for the improvement of survey No. 5/2. By virtue of Section 7 of the Act Government therefore has the right to recover the money with interest from the borrower personally, or out of the land for the benefit of which the loan was granted, or out of properties given as collateral security that is in the present case survey Nos. 381, 382 and 124. It is provided in the same section that it is in the discretion of the Collector to determine the order in which he...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›