Mumbai Court February 1940 Judgments
Vishweshwar Narsabhatta Gaddada Vs. Durgappa Irappa Bhatkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-29-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom339; (1940)42BOMLR653
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Lokur, as he then was, in second appeal. The plaintiff is suing to recover the suit property from defendant No. 1, and the material facts are these.2. The suit property at one time belonged to the father of the plaintiff, and he sold it in 1901 to the father of defendant No. 2. The father of defendant No. 2 died prior to 1926, leaving three sons, the eldest of whom was named Mahableshwar. On August 8, 1926, Mahableshwar, as the manager of the family, sold the suit property to defendant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 600. On August 10, that is two days later, defendant No. 1 granted a permanent lease of the property to Mahableshwar, which lease, the learned Subordinate Judge says, came to an end for non-payment of rent, and nothing turns upon that. On the same day defendant No. 1 granted to Mahableshwar an option to repurchase the property at the price of Rs. 600, the option being contained in e...
Tag this Judgment!Jagat Singh Vs. Sangat Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR697
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is brought from a decree of the High Court at Lahore dated January 31, 1936, reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge, Lyallpur, dated January 31, 1935, and dismissing the appellants suit. The subject-matter of the dispute is someof squares of land in the district of Lyallpur in the Punjab, which (as is now admitted) belonged to one Ishar Singh who died childless on October 6, 1905, leaving him surviving a widow Bishan Devi; also a brother's son Sundar Singh who died on January 10, 1922. On February 7, 1929, the widow purported to make a gift of one portion of the land to Sangat Singh (respondent No. 1) and of another portion to a certain Gurdwara (respondent No. 2). The present suit was brought on August 7, 1933, by the appellants, who are three of the four sons of Sundar Singh. The fourth son was made a defendant and is now respondent No. 3. The claim of the plaint is for a declaration that the gifts of land to Sangat Singh and to the Gurdwara have ...
Tag this Judgment!Gurupadappa Mallappa Kalasgond Vs. Basappa Shiddappa Kalagi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom276; (1940)42BOMLR592
Kania, J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the District Judge at Bijapur. Defendant No. 1 was the vendor and the plaintiff was the purchaser of an immoveable property. The plaintiff failed to pay the balance of the purchase price and brought this suit for possession. The Court passed a decree in these terms:-Plaintiff should obtain possession of the suit property. We decide that there is a charge according to law of defendant No. 1 for Rs. 315 which the plaintiff has to pay to him out of the amount of sale. We order that the plaintiff do. pay to defendant No. 1 Rs. 315 within six months from to-day. If the plaintiff fails to pay the monies (within the period mentioned above) as per above order defendant No. 1 should pay Court fees on Rs. 315 and recover the said amount by the sale of the property in suit.2. After this decree was passed the property was sold to a third party and that transaction is not liable to be challenged or set aside. Therefore, with-out taking any fu...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Shah Vs. Lal Chand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR640
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal raises questions as to the true construction and effect of Section 20 of the Indian limitation Act (IX of 1908) as amended by the Indian Limitation Amendment Act (I of 1927), Conflicting decisions in India have made it desirable that their Lordships should construe the Section, and as in the present case the High Court has differed from the trial Court on the facts, the evidence must be examined.2. The plaintiff appellant Rama Shah is described as a banker and carries on a business at Jhelum which includes the lending of money. The defendant Lal Chand is a timber merchant of the same town who on various occasions between October 17, 1929, and July 17, 1931, took a loan from the plaintiff, giving to him a promissory note for the amount of the loan with interest at twelve per cent, per annum. Two small loans not covered by promissory notes were alleged by the plaintiff to have been made and were disputed by the defendant, but five promissory notes are admi...
Tag this Judgment!Ratansi Jethabhai Bhat Vs. Balkisan Gangabakas Nandwani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom267; (1940)42BOMLR528
Kania, J.1. This is an appeal from the order of the Assistant Judge at Jalgaon. The plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendants certain lands in terms of a writing passed by the defendants on November 30, 1932. The lands are agricultural fields, and the defendants are agriculturists. The agreement was to sell the lands for Rs. 3,000, payable by six annual instalments of Rs. 500 each. The defendants paid the first instalment of Rs. 500 but failed to pay the two subsequent instalments. The result was that, in terms of the agreement, the plaintiff required the defendants to hand over the lands back to him. On their failing to do so, he filed the suit to recover back his possession. It is to be noticed that there was no conveyance in favour of the defendants from the plaintiff. In the trial Court the plaintiff succeeded. The defendants' contention was that although the writing contained a stipulation to pay the plaintiff Rs. 3,000 in six instalments the real agreement between the parties wa...
Tag this Judgment!The BrahmIn Mitra Mandal Co-operative Housing Society, Limited Vs. the ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom269; (1940)42BOMLR587
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Extra Assistant Judge of Ahmedabad, and it raises a question whether the plaintiffs are liable to be assessed to general water-rate by the Municipality of Ahmedabad. The plaintiffs own an estate on the western border of the Municipality's district, and they are developing that estate for building purposes. None of the houses or lands forming part of the estate is supplied directly with water by the Municipality. Indeed the plaintiffs have spent a considerable sum in providing a water supply of their own. There are three stand pipes of the Municipality at a distance of approximately 240, 500 and 550 yards from the boundary of the plaintiffs' property. There is also a road running close to the boundary of the plaintiffs' property which is kept watered by the Municipality. The Municipality have an extensive system of water works, and the evidence is that they have spent something like Rs. 45 lakhs in providing such wat...
Tag this Judgment!Rustomjee Sorabji Kapadia Vs. Mahadev Chintaman Wadekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom277; (1940)42BOMLR596
Kania J.1. This is a second appeal from the decision of the District Judge at Poona which raises a question in execution. The respondents filed in the Bombay High Court suit No. 250 of 1929 against one Nowroji Kawasji. The suit was dismissed with costs. After the costs were taxed the figure of Rs. 3,500 was fixed. The decree was transmitted to Poona and from there transferred for execution to the Court of Second Class Subordinate Judge at Vadgaon. On September 28,1936, appellant No. 1, who is the executor of the will of Nowroji Kawasji, filed a darkhast. The property was then duly advertisedfor sale and knocked down to appellant No. 2 on August 4, 1937. On September 2, 1937, the respondents made an application headed ' Under Order XXI, Rule 90' to set aside the sale. The relief was sought on three grounds: (1) that the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Vadgaon had no jurisdiction to sell the property; (2) material irregularities; and (3) that the purchaser was a benamidar of the origin...
Tag this Judgment!The Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay Vs. Anandrao Narayan S ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom403; (1940)42BOMLR817
Blackwell, J.1. This is a summons asking for a review of taxation. The applicant was sued in the Court of Small Causes as heir and legal representative of his deceased mother in respect of the riot tax applicable to a certain building. His defence was that he was the owner of the building, and being an exempted person was not liable. The Court passed a money decree against him ordering him to pay the tax out of the assets left by his mother which might have come to his hands. The plaintiffs, the Municipal Corporation of Bombay, got the decree transferred to the High Court for execution by attachment and sale of the immoveable property. The applicant took out a chamber summons for raising the attachment which was dismissed with costs by Mr. Justice Kania by an order dated December 1, 1937. Thereafter the execution proceedings were continued and certain further costs were incurred in connection with those proceedings.2. Mr. P. M. Clubwalla was acting as the plaintiffs' solicitor in conne...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Majid Vs. Shamsherali Fakruddin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom285; (1940)42BOMLR521
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal against a decision of the District Judge of West Khandesh.2. The plaintiffs sued to have it declared that the decree obtained by the defendants in suit No. 579 of 1932 was obtained by fraud and was not binding on the plaintiffs. The issue of fraud was decided against the plaintiffs. But a second point was taken in the plaint that the decree should be declared null and void on the ground that no succession certificate was produced. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit. He was of opinion that although no succession certificate was produced, that was a mere irregularity which did not vitiate thedecree, and he also expressed the opinion that the necessity for a succession certificate, being for the benefit of the debtor, could be waived. The decree, which is sought to be set aside, was a decree for money, and was a consent decree. In appeal the learned District Judge reversed the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that t...
Tag this Judgment!Malegaon Budruk Co-operative Credit Society Vs. Gangadhar Narayan Chav ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Bom284; (1940)42BOMLR525
Kania, J.1. This is a second appeal from the judgment of the District Judge at Poona who reversed the decision of the lower Court in civil suit No. 429 of 1933.2. The relevant facts are these : On November 13, 1921, an award was made, and to execute that award a darkhast was filed in 1924. In execution, the property in this suit was sold by the Jagirdar's Court at Malegaon and a sale certificate issued on November 10, 1924. On May 27, 1925, anapplication was made to the Jagirdar's Court to set aside this sale. An application was then made to the District Judge at Poona to transfer the hearing of that application, and it appears from the record that affidavits1 were filed in support of the application. On November 6, 1925, the District Judge ordered the application to be transferred to the First Class Subordinate Judge at Poona. That Subordinate Judge set aside the sale on June 19, 1926. The plaintiff applied for a review of the order, but the same was rejected on the ground that there ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »