Mumbai Court August 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.
Darbar Shree Naransinhji Chandrasinhji Vs. Madhavsing Kesarising Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR146
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the present Chief of Patdi who has succeeded to the estate of the former Chief who was the defendant in this suit. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for a permanent injunction against the defendant to restrain him from obstructing the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the plaint land which consists of a plot of land situated at Patdi in what is known as Patdi Estate.2. The plaintiff's case in substance was that his grandfather acquired the suit plot along with another bigger plot situated in its neighbourhood from the then Chief of Patdi on January 17, 1879. The consideration of the transaction was Rs. 1,600, out of which Rs. 1,200 were paid in cash and for the rest of the amount, i.e. Rs. 400, the purchaser transferred to the then Chief two rooms belonging to him at Patdi. It was thus a transaction of part sale and part exchange. At the time when this transaction took place one Himatsinhji was the Chief of the Patdi Estate. He died in 1884 ...
Sadashiv Ramchandra Nadgouda Vs. Amritrao Govind Sabnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR141
Divatia, J.1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant in a suit by the plaintiffs for a declaration that they were entitled to recover assessment of the suit lands from the defendant.2. The facts leading to this case are shortly as follows:- The suit lands are jat inam sheri lands and one Narayan Vishram was their owner. He mortgaged them on June 16, 1875, to one Govind by which all the rights which he had in the mortgaged lands were given in security. The mortgagor was to pay the judi to the Government in the first instance,. and if it was not paid, the mortgagee had to do so. Thereafter, there were three other mortgages of the same property in 1888, 1889 and 1893 to the same mortgagee and after his death, his widow. In October, 1914, the mortgagee obtained a decree on all the mortgages and applied to execute it. In May, 1915, a proclamation of sale of the mortgaged property was issued, and it was stated therein that the right, title and interest of the defendant, i.e. the inamdar, ...
Emperor Vs. Sadeppa Gireppa Mutgi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR946
John Beaumont, C.J.1. These are appeals by the eight accused against their conviction by the Sessions Judge of Belgaum of the offence of murder. They were sentenced to transportation for life. There is also a reference by the learned Judge against the verdict of the jury acquitting the accused on the charge of rioting, the learned Judge considering the verdict perverse. It is obvious that there is no substance in the reference, because the charge of rioting and the charge of murder depend on the same evidence, and, therefore, the really serious question is whether the accused were guilty of murder.2. The jury, as I have said, returned a verdict of not guilty on the charge of rioting, which must mean that they disbelieved the prosecution evidence. Three of the jury happened to be clerks in the District Court or the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court, and as soon as they gave their verdict the learned Judge stated that he considered the verdict perverse, and declined to accept it. The...
Emperor Vs. Mahamed Kassam Panwalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR952
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal by Government against the acquittal of the accused, who was charged with infringement of the provisions of Section 5(1) (b) of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act of 1939 and Rule 12(10), (5) of the rules made under the Act.2. The accused is the keeper of a panshop, which he conducts himself and in which he employs no one. On February 15, 1941, he sold a pan worth one pice at about 10-20 p.m., and thereby he is alleged to have infringed Section 5 of the Act.3. The preamble of the Act recites that it is expedient to make provision for the regulation of hours of work in shops, commercial establishments, restaurants, eating houses, theatres and other establishments and for certain other purposes thereinafter specified. Then there are certain definitions, and to those which are material I will return. Then Section 5(1)(b) provides:Save as provided by or under any other enactment for the time being in force, no shop shall on any day be closed late...
Kantawa Basappa Patil Vs. Sangangowda Shivshankreppa Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-27-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR269
Macklin, J.1. These appeals arise out of a suit which is an off-shoot of the litigation ending in Basappa Dandappa v. Gurlingappa Shivshankerappa I.L.R. (1932) 57 Bom. 74, 35 Bom. L.R. 75. Shivlingappa and Basappa were separated brothers. Shivlingappa died in 1921, and his son Shivshankreppa died in 1922. In 1923 Shivshankreppa's widow Gurlingawa adopted Shidlingappa, who was then the only son of Basappa and his wifa Kantawa. The adoption was in the dwyamushyayana form, with the result that the adopted son is to be regarded as having two fathers and two mothers. Soon after the adoption the adopted son died, and litigation then arose between Gurlingawa on the one hand and the adopted son's natural father and mother on the other as to the inheritance. It was held by this Court that the two women1 inherited equally. Gurlingawa has now adopted the plaintiff. Basappa is now dead, and since the first litigation Kantawa has had a second son. The adoption of the plaintiff was subject to an agr...
In Re: Ratanji Ramaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-25-1941
Reported in: (1941)43BOMLR926
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a petition intituled In the matter of immoveable property situate at Navrangpura and In the matter of Ratanji Ramaji and others, all minors. It sets out that the petitioner is the karta of a Hindu joint family, and that the coparcenary property is vested in him, his minor sons and grandsons and his brother and minor sons of his brother, all the minor coparceners being mentioned in the title of the petition. Then the petition sets out the property of the family, and alleges that certain debts have been incurred by the petitioner as karta on behalf of the joint family, the debts amounting approximately to Rs. 10,000. Then it is alleged that an offer has been obtained for the purchase of one item of the coparcenary property, being that mentioned in the title, for a sum of Rs. 66,000 odd, which is alleged to be a very good price, and that the purchaser in the contract has stipulated that the petitioner as guardian of the minors should obtain the necessary sanc...
Bhajgovind Chunilal Sevak Vs. Harilal Gordhandas Sevak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR401
Divatia, J.1. The only point urged on behalf of the appellants in this appeal relates to that part of the decision of the lower Court in which they are directed to put up three perpendicular wooden bars in their window 'X' in the plan, so that one may not peep out of it. That injunction was given because on the finding of the lower appellate Court one can look into the upper storeys of the plaintiffs on both the sides and that those storeys were used for sitting and sleeping purposes. This finding is made because of the custom of privacy which is found to be prevailing in Gujarat and judicially recognised by authorities since a very long time. The finding is attacked on behalf of the appellants on the ground that the previous decisions relating to the right of privacy were given in cases coming from the districts of Broach, Surat and Ahmedabad, but that there was no judicial decision which lays down that the custom of privacy prevails in the district of Kaira in Gujarat from which this...
Baswannewa Malleshappa Appaji Vs. Dodgowda Basangowda Dyawangowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR15
Macklin, J.1. This second appeal has arisen in this way: In October, 1930, defendant No. 2 and the late husband of defendant No. 3 mortgaged the house and land in suit for Rs. 1,000. On November 21, 1930, the house was attached by defendant No. 4 in execution of a money decree against defendant No. 3's husband. In May, 1932, the house was sold by the Court and was bought by defendant No. 4, and in due course that order was confirmed in 1935 by the High Court in second appeal. But in the meantime defendant No. 1, the original mortgagee, sold his mortgagee's rights to the plaintiff, and in June, 1935, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 sold both the house and the land to the present plaintiff for the amount of the mortgage debt.2. In 1933 the plaintiff brought a suit to restrain defendant No. 4 from taking possession of the property under his Court purchase. This was dismissed because it was held that, defendant No. 4 having bought the equity of redemption of the house in execution proceedings, his...
Hargowandas B. Kotak Vs. Chimanlal Vadilal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR95
Kania, J.1. This is a notice of motion taken out by the applicant (who is defendant No. 2 in the suit) against the respondent, Chimanlal Vadilal Shah, the managing director of Shah Publicity Corporation, Ltd.2. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against two defendants. Defendant No. 1, who is the daughter of defendant No. 2, is a minor. Plaintiff alleges that he is married to defendant No. 1 and after the alleged marriage the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 lived together at Poona. It is stated in the plaint that defendant No. 2 caused defendant No. 1 to leave the plaintiff, and although he made efforts, defendant No. 1 had not returned to him. The prayers are for a declaration that defendant No. 1 is the lawfully wedded wife of the plaintiff and inter alia for an injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from preventing defendant No. 1 from returning to the plaintiff. After the suit was filed, as defendant No. 1 was a minor, proceedings were taken in chambers to get a guardian ad litem ap...
Laxman Raghunath Gokhale Vs. Mahadev Heramb Dev
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-20-1941
Reported in: (1942)44BOMLR11
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the learned District Judge of Poona, refusing to execute an order, which he had made, for payment of certain costs on the ground that the order was not an executable one.2. The question arises in relation to a scheme for regulating a charitable institution known as Chinchwad Sansthan, and I must confess that the question involved seems to me to show that matters have got into a very considerable state of confusion.3. A scheme was framed in the year 1895 for the management of the affairs of the Sansthan, and the material clauses are set out in Lambodar v. Dharanidhar (1925) 28 Bom. L.R. 64. The management of the institution was to be vested in three trustees, and the District Judge of Poona was to nominate one of them. In Clause (4) it is provided:-The said trustees shall hold office for life, but it shall be competent to the District Judge of his own motion or upon the application or representation o...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »