Mumbai Court March 1941 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Krishna Govind Patil Vs. Moolchand Keshavchand Gujar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR751
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a second appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Belgaum, and has been referred to a full bench, because it raises a question, whether the decision of a bench of this Court in Raghunath Govind v. Gangaram Yesu (1923) I.L.R. 47 Bom. 643 is correct.2. There was a decree in this case for maintenance, and the decree-holder assigned certain arrears of maintenance under that decree to the present respondent. The present respondent applied to execute the decree under Order XXI, Rules 11 and 16, of the Civil Procedure Code. The answer made by the judgment-debtor was that the arrears of maintenance purported to have been assigned had in fact been paid, and, therefore, there was no effective assignment. The trial Judge held the satisfaction proved and dismissed the darkhast. The learned District Judge, in appeal, held on a legal point that the satisfaction was not proved and directed execution to proceed. In this Court the first point taken is that inasmuch ...
Bayabai Vs. Esmail Ahmed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR823
Kania, J.1. This is a suit filed by a daughter against her father for arrears of maintenance, separate maintenance, and a declaration that the father was liable to pay reasonable expenses which she may have to incur for her marriage.2. The plaintiff was born at Mandvi (Surat) in 1920. Her mother was divorced by the defendant in December, 1931. On October 5, 1931, the defendant, through his attorneys, wrote to the plaintiff's mother's attorneys threatening to obtain possession of the plaintiff who was alleged to be wrongfully detained by her mother. In that letter the defendant offered to pay Rs. 15 every month, which the plaintiff's mother was asked to receive from the office of the defendant's attorneys, pending the steps which the defendant intended to take to obtain the custody of the plaintiff. No money was received by the plaintiff's mother, but she was thereafter divorced in December, 1931. On August 21, 1940, the plaintiff through her attorneys sent a letter of demand to the def...
Raghunath Ambaidas Shet Chitode Vs. Dwarkabai Jagannath Shet Chitode
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR772
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 4,000 by way of arrears of maintenance from the joint family estate in which her deceased husband had a half share. The plaintiff is the widow of one Jagannath who died in the year 1934. Her marriage took place in 1924, but two years thereafter she had to leave her husband's house on account of excessive cruelty and ill-treatment by her husband and mother-in-law. Thereafter she remained in her father's house and in 1935, after the death of her husband, she brought the present suit to recover the arrears of her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500 per year from 1926 up to the date of the suit in September, 1935. The claim is confined to this period and does not extend to her future maintenance out of the joint family property. The defendant is her husband's brother who has taken the whole of the family property by survivorship. The plaintiff' was met with the plea that she was not driven out of the house but she we...
Jotiram Ekoba Patil Vs. Ramchandra Trimbak Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR843
Wassoodew, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Jalgaon in a suit by the adopted son of one Trimbak and by the latter's widow the adoptive mother against T'rimbak's cousins and a nephew, the defendants, for partition of the family lands and other property. The precise relationship of Trimbak with the defendants will be apparent from the following genealogical table:-- Laxman (dead) __________________|_________________ | | Ekoba (dead) Kautik (dead) | = Guntabali (exhibit 159) _________________|_________________ | | | | Trimbak (died on Jyotiram Baliram Bajirao (dead) August 5, 1927) (Defendant No. 1) (Defendant No. 2) | =Narmadabai Pandalik (Plaintiff No. 2) (Defendant No. 3) | Ramachandra Plaintiff No. 1- (adopted son)The principal dispute relates to the legality and validity of the adoption of Ramchandra, plaintiff No. 1, said to have been made on March 31, 1935. The factum of adoption, although not disputed here, was disputed in the trial Cour...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›