Mumbai Court December 1940 Judgments
Akoba Laxman Pawar Vs. Sai Genu Laxman Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom204; (1941)43BOMLR338
Divatia, J.1. This case raises an interesting point of Hindu law which does not seem to be covered by authority. The appellant, who was the original plaintiff, sued to recover certain property as a distant agnate of one Maruti who died in 1929 without leaving a widow or any issue. His father Sitaram had a brother named Genu who died several years back leaving a widow Sai who is defendant No. 1 in this case. The property was taken possession of by Sai as she was the widow of the paternal uncle, i.e. a gotraja sapinda, of Maruti, and as such was entitled in our Presidency to inherit it as an heir in preference to a distant agnate under the ruling in Lallubhai Bapubhai v. Mankuvarbai (1876) I.L.R. 2 Bom. 388. The plaintiff contended that Sai was unchaste at the time when Maruti died, and was, therefore, incapable of inheriting the suit property. The only question at issue was whether Sai was debarred from inheriting the property of Maruti because of her unchastity. It was conceded by her ...
Tag this Judgment!The Jagadamba Loan Company, Limited Vs. Raja Shiba Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR789
George Rankin, J.1. The controversy in this case has reference to 650 bighas of coal land in Mouza Jinagara in the District of Manbhum in Bihar. In these, the appellants, the Jagadamba Loan Company, Limited, are mortgagees of certain leasehold interests which were granted by the Jharia raj as zemindar to one Charles Smith upon the terms of two kabuliyats, dated April 24, 1907. By one of these instruments Charles Smith, took settlement of the surface rights for 999 years at an annual rent of Rs. 650: by the other sub-soil rights were settled with him for the same period upon certain terms as to payment of royalty which need not here be set out. The rent for the surface rights was secured by a provision that 'the leasehold land remains wholly hypothecated for the amount of rent and the amount of rent will be treated as the first charge. As regards the sub-soil rights the provision was 'that for the amount of royalty the leasehold land and the machineries remain wholly hypothecated. If I ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›