Mumbai Court May 1940 Judgments
M.L.M. Mahalingam Chettiar Vs. Ramanathan Chettiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-30-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR1166
Romer, J.1. This is a consolidated appeal against the orders dated October 2, 1934, and February 1, 1935, of the High Court of Madras affirming two orders dated December 23, 1931, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura. The appeal arises out of certain execution proceedings, and the principal question to be determined is whether in the case of cross decrees for money the right of the party holding the decree for the larger amount to set off the smaller decree against him is defeated by reason of the smaller decree having been attached by third parties.2. The facts that give rise to the appeal are not in dispute and can be stated with reasonable brevity.3. On November 27, 1911, the appellant's father, one Ramanathan Chettiar, obtained a decree fon a sum of Rs. 46,253 odd with further interest and costs against the first respondent and his father Subrahmanyam Chettiaf in Original Suit No. 77 of 1911 in the Court of the Temporary Subordinate Judge of Ramnad. On Septembe...
Tag this Judgment!Mirza Akbar Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-28-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR20
Wright, J.1. This is an appeal in forma pauperis by special leaves from a judgment and order of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province, dated July 10, 1939. The learned Judicial Commissioner dismissed the appellant's appeal from his conviction of an offence punishable under Section 302/120-B, Indian Penal Code, i.e., conspiracy to murder in consequence of which conspiracy murder was committed, and confirmed the sentence of death passed on him by the Additional Sessions Judge, Peshawar Division, on May 8, 1939.2. The appeal raises two main points, which are the only points calling in their Lordships' judgment for consideration here. They are independent of each other. The first is a question as to the jurisdiction of the Court by which the sentence was confirmed. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the Court was not legally constituted, because the appeal to the Court was dismissed and the sentence confirmed by a single Judge of the Court of th...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Lal Vs. Gomti Kuar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-27-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR1156
M.R. Jayakar, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought on September 8, 1928, by the appellants (plaintiffs Nos. 3-5) and respondents Nos. 29 and 30 (plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2) against respondents Nos. 1-28 (de- fendants Nos. 1-28), claiming redemption of certain properties on the allegation that the deed of sale of the said properties dated March 25, 1844, executed by one Gulab Singh (the representative, in interest of the plaintiffs) in favour of Het Ram and Tula Ram (the representatives in interest of the defendants) and an alleged agreement to transfer the said properties bearing the same date and executed by Het Ram and Tula Ram in favour of Gulab Singh formed one transaction and constituted a mortgage by conditional sale of the properties comprised in the sale-deed.2. In the plaint, plaintiffs mentioned March 26, 1844, as the date of the mortgage completed by the execution of the two documents and they filed with the plaint a certified copy of the: said sale-deed (w...
Tag this Judgment!Suleman Haji Ahmed Umer Vs. Haji Abdulla Haji Rahimtulla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR971
Philip Macdonell, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Bombay in its appellate jurisdiction, given in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, and reversing a judgment of the Original Side of that Court which judgment had dismissed, the plaintiff-respondent's action to recover various sums of money bailed by him to the defendant-appellant between the years 1923 and 1928.2. The only question for determination in this appeal is whether the respondent as plaintiff brought this action within time or whether his claim is barred under the Indian Limitation Act, IX of 1908, and the answer to this question depends on what was the character of the bailment under which the plaintiff handed over and the defendant received these sums of money. If by that bailment the respondent must claim these sums of money as ' money payable for money lent', Article 57 of the Indian Limitation Act, or as ' money lent under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand,' Article 59 of the Indi...
Tag this Judgment!Hem Chandra Roy Chaudhury Vs. Suradhani Debya Chaudhurani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR993
George Rankin, J. 1. The appellant, Hem Chandra Roy Chaudhury, was defendant No. 1 in a suit: brought by respondent No. 1 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Mymensingh to enforce a mortgage. The suit was filed on March 6, 1931, and the mortgage deed (exhibit 1) was dated August 18, 1918. The property mortgaged thereby was a taluk (Gangaram Rai) numbered 237 in the books of the Mymensingh Collectorate and comprising ten mouzas; also another taluk (Sambhu Chandra Roy) numbered 239 in the same Collectorate and comprising seven mouzas. The mortgage deed had been executed in favour of the plaintiff by two persons as mortgagors-the appellant and his paternal grandmoth'er, an old lady whose name was Srn. Nabin Kishore Chaudhurani.2. The appellant had inherited the mortgaged properties, together with other properties, from his father at some date before 1914 while he was yet a minor. The father's will, made in 1891, states that Nabin Kishore, the testator's adoptive mother, had managed a...
Tag this Judgment!Kishori Lal Vs. Bhawani Shankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-23-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR1144
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal is brought by the plaintiffs from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, dated November 24, 1936. The defendants have not been represented at the hearing of the appeal, but Mr. Rewcastle and Mr. Hyam for the appellants have carefully laid before the Board all the material considerations.2. The suit was brought on March 21, 1932, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Etah, upon a registered mortgage dated September 1, 1926, and claimed the usual relief under Order XXXIV, Civil Procedure Code,-Enforcement of the mortgage by sale of the mortgaged property. The mortgage deed was in favour of the plaintiffs. It was executed by three persons as mortgagors-Bhawani, Mahadeo, and Sriman Narain-but Bhawani purported to execute on behalf of himself and his minor son Kailash Narain; while Mahadeo purported to execute on behalf of himself and his four minor sons- Tirjugi, Giyanendra, Mathresh and Sat Narain. As will be seen the pedigree hereunder, Bhawani and Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Thakur Bhagwan Singh Vs. Bishambhar Nath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR990
Goddard, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing an appeal by the present appellants and allowing an appeal by the first three respondents from a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Agra. The action was brought to recover Rs. 44,000, the principal sum secured by a mortgage dated August 17, 1924, with interest thereon at five and a quarter per cent. This mortgage was in fact the last in a Series by way of renewal of an original mortgage dated July 22, 1892, whereby Durjan Sal, the father of appellant No. 1 and great grandfather of appellants Nos. 2 and 3, had mortgaged some of his ancestral lands to one Bhoraj, the father of respondent No. 4, for Rs. 25,000. The consideration for the mortgage is stated in the deed to be the discharge of two promissory notes with interest amounting to Rs. 6,221-8-0 and Rs. 18,778-8-0 cash, for payment of a debt due under a bond. On the same day the mortgagor executed a bond for Rs. 2,000 payable in two years in f...
Tag this Judgment!Masjid Shahid Ganj Mosque Vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-02-1940
Reported in: (1940)42BOMLR1100
George Rankin, J. 1. Before 1935 there had stood for many years to the south of what is now called the Naulakha Bazaar, in the city of Lahore, a structure having three domes and five arches, which had been built as a mosque (masjid) and which retained, notwithstanding considerable disrepair, sufficient of its original character to suggest, or even to proclaim, its original purpose. It had a projecting niche (mehrab) in the centre of the west wall such as is used in mosques as the place from which the imam leads the prayers. Its dedication is no longer in dispute, having been established as of the year 1134 A.H. or 1722 A.D. by the production and proof of a deed of dedication executed by one Falak Beg Khan. By this deed, Sheikh Din Mohammad and his descendants were appointed mutawalis.2. The deed speaks of a school, a well and an orchard as being among the appurtenancies of the mosque and givea the total area of the dedicated property as three kanals and fifteen marlas; but it is not no...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›