Mumbai Court December 1940 Judgments
Subrao Baji Patil Vs. Dada Bhiwa Chawan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom323; (1941)43BOMLR492
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Assistant Judge of Satara. The plaintiff sues to recover certain immoveable properly, and hiss title is made out in this way. As long ago as the year 1892 Jana, who was the widow of Tukaram, sold the suit property to the defendant's father. In 1913 she endeavoured to recover the property on the ground that the transaction was a mortgage and not a sale, but she died soon after that suit was started, and the suit abated. On the death of Jana in 1913 the property passed to Ahilya, who was the widow of Tukaram's divided brother Baji, who had died before Jana. Ahilya, as the widow of a gotraja sapinda, according to the law in force in this Presidency, enjoyed only a widow's estate, and in 1928, she adopted the plaintiff. In 1936 the plaintiff filed this suit seeking to recover the property from the defendant, who had been in possession since 1892,on the ground that the sale by Jana was not for legal necessity. The suit failed...
Tag this Judgment!Kanhaiyalal Harkarandas Vs. Mohanlal Ramvallabh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom219; (1941)43BOMLR287
Blackwell, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff on November 13, 1940, for an order that the defendant may be restrained from proceeding with a complaint filed by him in the First Class Magistrate's Court at Benares. That complaint was filed on February 14, 1940.2. By a letter dated January 19, 1940, the defendant's advocate alleged that the plaintiff had been entrusted with ornaments by the defendant worth over Rs. 7,600, a list of which was appended to the letter, on the plaintiff's assurance that they would be returned to the defendant whenever required, that the plaintiff had written several letters to the defendant assuring him that he would return the same, that in spite of repeatd demands he had not done so, and had dishonestly misappropriated the ornaments. The letter demanded the return of the ornaments within a week of the receipt of the notice, and stated that in default the defendant would be constrained to take steps for the prosecution of the plaintif...
Tag this Judgment!Krishnawa Yelagouda Patil Vs. Ramagouda Kadagouda Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR483
Broomfield, J.1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit brought by the respondent to recover possession of certain land.2. The land at one time belonged to two undivided brothers, Balagouda and Basagouda, who formed a joint Hindu family. Basagouda died in the year 1907 and soon after his death Krishnabai, one of his two widows, adopted a boy named Iragouda who died in or about the year 1911. The plaintiff claims to have been adopted by Krishnabai on April 29, 1931, and he claims also that by that adoption he became a coparcener with Balagouda and on the death of Balagouda, which took place in August, 1936, he became the sole surviving coparcener. In this suit he seeks to set aside two gifts which were made by Balagouda in July, 1934. These gifts were in favour of two daughters of Balagouda, who are the defendants in the suit. He also. made, gifts to his other two daughters, one of whom is the wife of the plaintiff, but; we are not concerned in this suit with those transactions. ...
Tag this Judgment!Haji NasiruddIn Karim Mahomed Vs. Patel Haji Umerji Adam and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-09-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom286; (1941)43BOMLR546
B.J. Wadia, J.1. The plaintiffs carry on business as milk merchants in the firm name and style of Haji Nasiruddin Karim Mahomed & Co. at Jogeshwari outside the Fort of Bombay, and own a large number of buffaloes which were housed in the stables belonging to Sir Mahomed Yusuf, situate at Lamington Road. The defendants are the rent fanning contractors of the stables, and the plaintiffs had attorned tenants to them as from December 1, 1938. There were really five different tenancies taken in the names of the five plaintiffs separately. This suit is to recover a sum of Rs. 30,000 as damages from the defendants for having executed certain distress warrants obtained from the Small Cause Court, Bombay, on an application made on behalf of the defendants on February 15, 1939, for the rent due to them from the plaintiffs for the month of January, 1939. The distress warrants were executed on February 16 and the buffaloes were attached, but the plaintiffs paid the amount of the rent due to the def...
Tag this Judgment!Dashrathlal Chhaganlal Vs. Bai Dhondubai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom262; (1941)43BOMLR581
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is a second appeal from the Extra Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad. In the suit the plaintiff seeks to exercise a right of preemption in respect of the suit property, which is situate in the Bhadra division of Ahmedabad. The plaintiff seeks to exercise the right of pre-emption by reason of her owning property adjacent to the suit property. So that we are only concerned in this case with the right of a neighbour to exercise the right of pre-emption, and not with the right of other parties, like co-owners.2. Pre-emption is a part of the Mahomedan law, and, so far as is necessary for the purpose of the present appeal, one may say that it is the right of an owner of property to acquire from the purchaser of adjacent property such property at the price and on the conditions at and on which he has bought it. The object of the law, as explained in the Hedaya, was to enable landowners to avoid the advent of an undesirable neighbour, and the Prophet laid down that t...
Tag this Judgment!Dwarkadas Dhanji Sha Vs. Chhotalal Ravicarandas and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom188; (1941)43BOMLR280
B.J. Wadia, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the defendants for further discovery.2. The plaintiffs claim to be the registered proprietors of a certain design for being printed on textile goods registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911), and have filed this suit against the defendants for restraining them from infringing the design under the circumstances mentioned in the plaint, and for accounts, damages, costs and other reliefs In their written statement the defendants allege that prior to the registration of the design it was published in British India by the plaintiffs themselves as well as by other merchants. They also contend that the design was not new or original at the date of the registration, and that the registration is invalid and does not confer any specific right upon the plaintiffs to exclusively use the same. In order to substantiate these defences, the defendants pray for an order for discovery and inspection of the documents mentioned...
Tag this Judgment!Ningauda Girimallappa Patil Vs. Nabisaheb Abalal Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Bom263; (1942)44BOMLR543
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit to recover possession of certain properties. The facts which have led to the appeal are shortly as follows:-2. Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are brothers constituting a joint family having an undivided one-fourth share in the suit lands. They had mortgaged them with possession to one Mirza Abdul Begg for Rs. 200 some time before 1930. On March 25, 1930, defendants Nos. 3 and 4 redeemed the property from the mortgagee. Defendant No. 3 had contributed Rs. 50 for his one-fourth share, and the balance of Rs. 150 was paid by defendant No. 4 on behalf of himself and defendants Nos. 1 and 2. He was thus subrogated to the position of the mortgagee Mirza so far as the shares of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were concerned. One Kadgauda had obtained a money decree against defendant No. 1 alone, and he filed Darkhast No. 345 of 1935 for bringing his one-fourth share in the suit property to sale. On February 12, 1936, defendant No. 4 applied to the Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mohanlal Bababhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR163
John Beaumont, C.J. 1. This is an appeal by the accused against his conviction under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code by the Presidency Magistrate, Fourth Court, Bombay.;2. The story of the complainant is that the accused was brought to his flat by a mutual friend on September 14, 1939, and on the 18th the complainant went to Surat, and left the accused and a relation of the complainant named Kodarlal in the flat. Part of the flat was locked up; the rest was left open. The complainant returned to Bombay on October 23, and then found the locks on the doors of the flat and cupboards broken, and some of his goods missing. He went round to the police at once and gave information. He gave a list of the articles which, he said, he had lost, which) were articles of no great value, worth about Rs. 50 or Rs. 60 and he stated that he had no suspicion against anybody. Police Sub-Inspector Harris went round to the flat and found that things were disturbed, and it looked as if there ha...
Tag this Judgment!Maharani Hemanta Kumari Debi Vs. Gauri Sankar Tewari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR777
George Rankin, J.1. The sanctity which Hindu thought and feeling attribute to the Ganges and the special veneration which its stream commands at it flows past the holy city of Benares (Kashi) are manifested by the temples and bathing ghats upon the banks. The efficacy of its waters to wash away every form of sin and pollution is widely accepted doctrine among the orthodox and brings the Hindu pilgrim in large numbers seeking to acquire religious merit and advantage. According to evidence given in the present case 'Mankarnika, Dasaswamedh, Panch Ganga, Assi and Barna are the panch tirthas, of Kashi: one who comes to Kashi on pilgrimage has to visit all these five places.' In this appeal their Lordships are concerned with a bathing ghat which is known as the Prayag or Puthiya ghat and which is covered by the name Dasaswamedh--the name of a mohalla, of the city.2. The suit was brought on February 15, 1929, in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Benares, The plaintiff was Maha...
Tag this Judgment!Khimjee Thakarsee Vs. the Pioneer Fibre Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom337; (1941)43BOMLR576
Blackwell, J.1. This is a summons taken out by the applicants for an order that the attachment levied by the plaintiff on the property at Fergusson Road, Lower Parel, by the warrant of attachment dated September 13, 1939, be raised. This summons was adjourned into Court for taking evidence. In view, however, of the arguments of counsel, and in particular of what has been conceded by counsel for the plaintiff, evidence has not become necessary. The matter has been greatly shortened by the concessions made by the learned' counsel for the plaintiff.2. The defendants became the tenants of the applicants. The terms upon, which they became the tenants of the applicants are set out in the correspondence annexed to the affidavit of N.M. Bhagalia dated March 6, 1940. That correspondence amounting to an agreement to lease ought to have beem registered by reason of the definition of a lease in Section 2(3) of the Indian Registration Act and Section 17(2) (d). It was not registered. Notwithstandin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »