Mumbai Court August 1940 Judgments
Apya Shettya Talawar Vs. Rammakka Apya Talawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-30-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom222; (1941)43BOMLR314
Wassoodew, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decree of the Assistant Judge of Belgaum. The dispute relates to the validity of the adoption of the defendant to the action. The suit was instituted by one Ramakka, a Holer or Shudra by caste, for a declaration that the defendant was not legally adopted on November 15, 1928, to her deceased son Shettya by the latter's widow Mallawa; and for confirmation of the plaintiff's possession of her son's estate owing to the remarriage of Mallawa. The validity of the adoption was questioned on two principal grounds: (1) that the defendant was born of an adulterous intercourse, his conception and birth having taken place long after his mother's husband's death, and (2) that the mother, although a Holer or Shudra, had given him in adoption after her remarriage. Both the Courts below have found, and the finding is not challenged before us, that the defendant was an offspring of adulterous intercourse and that he was given in adoption before his mother...
Tag this Judgment!Sukhanandan RamdhIn Vs. Maniklal Kanhialal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom82; (1940)42BOMLR1135
Kania, J.1. This is a motion for the stay of this suit on the ground that the matter should be referred to arbitration.2. The dispute between the parties arises out of a transaction in cotton. It is admitted that there was an initial sale of 200 bales of cotton and a contract note dated November 6, 1939, was sent by the defendants to the plaintiffs and signed by the plaintiffs. Thereafter owing to fluctuations in the market the defendants demanded margin money but the plaintiffs failed to pay the same. Thereupon the defendants closed the transaction on February 3, 1940. On receipt of intimation thereof the plaintiffs repudiated this closing transaction. The defendants thereupon offered to resell, if the margin, as demanded, was paid. To that there was no reply. The defendants thereupon sent a contract note with their letter of February 6, 1940, to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs retained the same with them. On February 20, 1940, the defendants sent a statement of account showing the bal...
Tag this Judgment!Vithalbhai Motibhai Vs. the Nadiad Electric Supply Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-23-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom67; (1940)42BOMLR1098
Broomfield, J.1. These are two revision applications in Small Cause Court, suits.The parties are on the one hand certain inhabitants of Nadiad who have an electric motor for the purpose of irrigating their lands and therefore require electrical energy; the other party is a Nadiad company which supplies electrical energy.2. In one of the cases there is a question as to the construction of an agreement between the parties. In the other case another agreement between them had to be construed. There was a question whether it was consistent with certain Section s of the Indian Electricity Act and there was also a question whether the agreement had been obtained by undue influence, which of course was a pure question of fact. They are therefore quite ordinary Small Cause Court suits. The amount of money involved is very trivial, Rs. 45 in one case and Rs. 38 in the other. Prima facie it appears therefore that these are disputes which the Legislature intended to be settled by the Small Cause ...
Tag this Judgment!Abdul Aziz Valad Haji Subhan Vs. Mahomed Ibrahim Ghatkari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-19-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom238; (1941)43BOMLR126
Divatia, J.1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of Mr, Justice Lokur comfirming the decree of the lower Court. The appellants are some of the original defendants in a suit by the plaintiffs for partition of certain lands and for a declaration that they were entitled to the management of the devasthan called Peer Mahi Taj and its property as mujawars thereof. The property consists of two fields, survey Nos. 773 and 590. With regard to the first field the question was whether it was the private property of the mujawars or it belonged to the Peer. Both the lower Courts came to the conclusion on evidence that it belonged to the Peer and was not the private property of the mujawars. Mr. Justice Lokur agreed with that finding. There is no question of law involved in that finding.2. With regard to survey No. 590, it is contended on behalf of the appellants that the plaintiffs were not receiving the income thereof for a very long time, and the defendants, therefore, whot perf...
Tag this Judgment!Musammat Subhani Vs. Nawab
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1940
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR432
M.R. Jayakar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether, under the customary law applicable to the members of the Tulla clan resident at mauza Mahamad Tulla in the tahsil and district of Shahpur in the Punjab, collaterals of the tenth degree of a deceased landowner can take precedence over his married daughters in succession to his non-ancestral estate. The question arose as follows:--One Sahlion, a Mahomedan landowner of the Tulla clan, resident as stated above, died, leaving him surviving a widow) and two married daughters (appellants before the Board) and some immoveable property. The widow subsequently gave the property to the daughters by a registered deed of gift dated September 8, 1934. The respondents, claiming to be his collaterals, instituted a suit against the widow (defendant No. 1) and the daughters (defendants Nos. 2 and 3) asserting that Sahlion's property WAS ancestral as regards the plaintiffs and that the widow had no right to make the gift, which should be declared...
Tag this Judgment!Rukmansa Rajansa Hosmani Vs. Shankargouda Basangouda Lakhyal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom83; (1940)42BOMLR1111
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decree passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Bijapur. The plaintiff sued for a sum of approximately Rs. 11,000. The defendants admitted that a sum of Rs. 5,976 and certain interest was due.2. At the first hearing the Court framed issues under Order XV, Rule 3, Sub-rule (1), of the Civil Procedure Code, and then adjourned the further hearing, under Sub-rule (2), to February 15, 1939. On that date the plaintiff alleged through his pleader that he was ill, and asked for an adjournment. The adjournment was refused, and the pleader thereupon withdrew, saying that he had no instructions to proceed. The learned Judge then dealt with the case on merits and answered the issues. He came to the conclusion that the defendants proved that only the amount admitted by them was due; in effect, therefore, he rejected the balance of the plaintiff's claim, and passed a decree against the defendants for the amount admitted to be due, and dire...
Tag this Judgment!Collector of Broach and Panch Mahals Vs. Ochhavlal Bhikalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom158; (1941)43BOMLR122
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in execution of a darkhast to recover a certain amount by the appellant who is the Collector of Broach and Panch Mahals against the respondent. The latter had been convicted on January 12, 1929, of the offence of cheating and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 15,000, and rigorous imprisonment for nine months in default of payment of fine. On May 10 of that year a letter was sent by the Sessions Judge to the Collector under Section 386(2) (b) of the Criminal Procedure Code authorising him to realise the amount of the fine by execution according to civil process against the immoveable property of the defaulter. This letter was sent because the opponent had not paid the amount of fine although he subsequently suffered the period of imprisonment in default of payment of the fine.2. Two darkhasts were filed by the Collector in 1929 and 1930 to realise the amount of the fine and a sum of Rs. 4,227 was realised in execution. Th...
Tag this Judgment!Haji Yoonus Shekh MohiddIn Nadkar Vs. Shekh Hasan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom178; (1941)43BOMLR194
Divatia, J.1. These are companion appeals preferred by the appellants who are some of the original plaintiffs in suits to recover possession of certain property and for an injunction against the defendants restraining them from recovering the income of the suit lands. The suit property formed certain fractions of an eight annas khoti taxim in the village of Sanglat in the Ratnagiri district. This eight annas taxim was at one time owned by three Mahomedan brothers. In October, 1791, some of the descendants of these three brothers, mortgaged this taxim to one Narayan or Naroi Damle. The deed of mortgage is not in evidence, but the mortgage has been admitted by the parties. In 1849, one of the persons interested in the mortgaged property filed a redemption suit, but nothing appears on the record with regard to this suit except a statement of account of the mortgaged property in 1849 signed by the pleader of the mortgagee (exhibit 92). Then in 1863, Shaikh Ibrahim, father of defendant No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Bhagwandas Bisesar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom50; (1940)42BOMLR938
B.J. Wadia J.1. This is; a case in which the two accused are charged with having committed the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also with having voluntarily caused hurt in committing robbery under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.2. A preliminary question has arisen at the commencement of this trial with regard to the admissibility of a statement made by accused No. 2 before the Coroner of Bombay at the end of the inquest proceedings on February 9, 1940.3. It is laid down in Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act that no confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police-officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person. Under Section 19(3) of the Coroners Act, Act IV of 1871 as amended by the Bombay Act, Act XIII of 1930, it is provided that, for the purpose of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a Coroner shall be deemed to be a Magistrate. The object of Section 2...
Tag this Judgment!Raychand Jivaji Vs. Basappa Virappa Bellary
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Bom71; (1940)42BOMLR1113
Broomfield, J.1. This is a Letters Patent appeal from a decision of Mr. Justice N. J. Wadia. The appeal arises out of execution proceedings. The appellant is the assignee of a decree obtained by one Kapurji Magniram in July, 1931. The terms of the decree which was passed on an award were as follows:-' Defendant do pay to plaintiff Rs. 22,900, Defendant do pay to plaintiff the said amount by annual instalments of Rs. 4,000. And interest on the said amount of Rs. 22,900 at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum should be paid until the amount is paid off. The first instalment should be paid before the end of July 1932. Subsequently before the same fixed time every year the instalments should be continued to be paid. As this amount is large, and as instalments are granted to defendant, for security of the plaintiff's amount a charge of the said amount has been placed on the property mentioned below. In case defendant fails to pay the amount of instalment at the time fixed, plaintiff do recover...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »