Mumbai Court October 1942 Judgments
Laldas Kalyandas Gujarati Vs. Shankar Ramchandra Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom255; (1943)45BOMLR501
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal from an order of the District Judge of East Khandesh, raising a short point in execution, which I should have thought must have arisen frequently, but on which there does not seem to be any direct authority. The question is this. A money decree was obtained by the present appellant in 1924, and in 1932 he filed a darkhast against the judgment-debtor, and on that darkhast the judgment-debtor's interest in S. No. 108 was attached on March 21, 1933. Subsequently the judgment-debtor died, and the darkhast was disposed of. Then there was a further darkhast in the year 1934 which was disposed of, and the present darkhast was issued on October 6, 1937, against the legal representative of the judgment-debtor, and the only question which is raised is whether the attachment under the orders of March 21, 1933, still continues, or whether it came to an end when the darkhast of 1932 was disposed of. The lower Courts have held that the attachment ca...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Bhuribai Sukhanand Gurmukhrai Vs. the Advocate General of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom377; (1943)45BOMLR669
Kania, J.1. This originating summons is taken out for the construction of the will of the deceased husband of the plaintiff, who died on February 2, 1931. The will is dated January 30, 1931. The deceased died childless leaving the plaintiff as his widow. He left assets worth about Rs. 8,77,000 but when considered with the schedule of debts annexed to the petition for probate, the total estate left was about two lacs of rupees. The will is in the Gujarati language, and although it appears to be attested by a solicitor and his clerk, there is nothing to show that any lawyer had a hand in its preparation. After stating that the properties left were his self-acquired properties, at the end of paragraph 3 the testator stated that he declared his wife Bhuribai to be the full owner of his said properties. Then he recited certain transactions which had taken place during his lifetime. Paragraph 7 of the will is material and runs as follows :-As regards my moveable and immoveable properties whi...
Tag this Judgment!Kantilal Jesingbhai Shah Vs. Amratlal Mansukhram Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom260; (1943)45BOMLR497
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Ahmedabad upholding the decision of the Subordinate Judge. The question raised is a point of limitation on which there seems to be no authority .2. The plaintiff's claim is based on a consent decree passed on March 29, 1930. In my opinion the question raised depends on the true construction of that decree, and I will refer later to its exact terms, after discussing the facts which give rise to the question; but stating it shortly, the decree directs payment of Rs. 1,672 odd, the amount to be payable by instalments of Rs. 22-8-0 each per month, and the peculiar feature of the decree is that there is no default clause providing that if any instalment, or stated number of instalments, be in arrear, the whole amount due shall become payable. The' only penalty for non-payment of an instalment on the due date is that it is to carry interest. I am told that if the decree had been worked out according to its ...
Tag this Judgment!Fakirappa Jotappa Malemani Vs. Ningappa Shidlingappa Matti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom265; (1943)45BOMLR491
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the District Judge of Dharwar confirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Hubli. The plaintiff sues for an injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's passage across the defendants' plot of land, and to remove an obstruction to the passage. It appears that on May 8, 1924, defendant No. 4 who at that time possessed the land both of the plaintiff and of the defendants sold to the predecessor of the plaintiff the plot which is survey No. 178 1/2, and ultimately, in 1935, the plaintiff acquired that plot. In 1930 defendant No. 3 as successor to defendant No. 4 sold the part of the survey number which had been retained by defendant No. 4, namely No. 178 1/1, to defendant No. 1. The lower Courts have held that the only means of access to the plaintiff's land is over the land of defendant No. 1, and but for one difficulty, which I will discuss, it is perfectly clear that the purchaser in 19...
Tag this Judgment!Ramrakh Bakshiram Marwadi Vs. Madhavrao Ganpatrao Bambale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom258; (1943)45BOMLR494
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal against a decision of the District Judge of Nasik raising a question as to whether certain remuneration payable by the Collector of Nasik to respondent No. 1, an inamdar, of the village of Taked-Budruk, is attachable. By a consent decree dated July 16, 1932, against respondent No. 1 it was directed that the respondent should pay a certain sum to the plaintiff (the present appellant) by instalments, and then under Clause 3 it was directed :-The plaintiff should recover the amount due as above from out of the sum of about Rs. 2,200 which the defendant gets every year as income of the jahagir of the village of Taked-Budruk. The defendant has accordingly made arrangements for the payment of the aforesaid sum through the Collector, Nasik District, from out of the amount of the jahagir. If that arrangement fails, then the plaintiff should recover from the defendant through Court the monies due as above from out of the amount of the aforesaid incom...
Tag this Judgment!Purshottam Hari Choudhari Vs. Vasant Shankar Choudhari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom259; (1943)45BOMLR489
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the District Judge of Ahmednagar.2. The plaintiff alleges that he is the purchaser of the equity of redemption of property included in a mortgage dated April 7, 1875, and he alleges that the amount due on the mortgage has been paid off, and he asks for a declaration that the amount has been paid off, and for recovery of possession from the mortgagee. The trial Court dismissed the suit, partly because it considered that an early mortgage of 1871 ought to have been redeemed, and partly on the ground of merger. The question of merger arises because the plaintiff, who has purchased the equity of redemption, is also a member of the joint family which is said now to own the mortgage. In appeal the learned District Judge thought that the earlier mortgage of 1871 was discharged by the suit mortgage of 1875, and I see no reason to differ from that finding. He thought that there was no merger, because the plaintiff owned the equity of...
Tag this Judgment!The District School Board Vs. Parameshwar Gattu Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-16-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom268; (1943)45BOMLR480
Broomfield, J.1. The question in this letters patent appeal is whether an employer of a District School Board has a right of action against the Board for damages by reason of his having been compulsorily retired before reaching the age' of fifty-five.2. The respondent entered Government service as a primary school teacher on December 1, 1897. After the Bombay Primary Education Act IV of 1923 came into force, his services were transferred to the District Local Board of North Kanara. Section 8 of the Act in question provides :8. (1) A local authority shall take over and employ such primary school teachers employed under the Educational Department of the Government as the Government may direct, on the same terms and conditions on which such persons were employed under the said department.(2) The existing and future rights, liabilities, duties and powers of the Government in respect of such teachers shall vest in and be exercised or performed by the local authority :Provided (a) that any s...
Tag this Judgment!Gyanu Kashiba Dhangar Vs. Sarubai Biru Dhangar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom266; (1943)45BOMLR477
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a second appeal against a decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nasik exercising appellate powers.2. The plaintiffs are the reversioners of one Biru who died in February 1935 leaving two widows, who are defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit. The defendants seem to have partitioned their husband's property between themselves for the purpose of their widow's estate, and on May 25, 1935, defendant No. 1 Warubai alienated a piece of land which came to her share of her husband's estate to defendants Nos. 3 to 11, who I am told, are the panchas of some temple in the district in which Biru had lived. That alienation is challenged by the plaintiffs as not being made for legal necessity. The consideration for the sale was Rs. 400 paid to defendant No. 1 to enable her to go on a pilgrimage to Gaya, which is admittedly a holy place in the neighbourhood of Benares. The rest of the consideration was valued at Rs. 600 for the purpose of the Indian Stamp Ac...
Tag this Judgment!Cooverbai Nasarwanji Bulsara Vs. Hayatbi Budhanbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-14-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom372; (1943)45BOMLR730
Wassoodew, J.1. This appeal arises from a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Nasik in a suit to enforce what is described as the right of the heirs of a Mohammedan widow to retain possession of her husband's estate in lieu of her unpaid dower. The suit has been instituted by the assignee of some of the heirs of the father of the deceased widow. The facts, which are material for the present purpose, may be shortly stated.2. The estate in suit, which consists of agricultural lands and houses, belonged originally to one Gafar who died in 1890 leaving behind him two sons and five daughters. One of those sons was Lalsaheb, and he died in 1906 leaving behind two widows Rahimunnissa and Pyarasaheba. Rahimunnissa is alive, and was defendant No. 17 to this action. Pyarasaheba died in 1920. The claim in this suit relates to the alleged right of Pyarasaheba to retain her husband's estate to satisfy her unpaid dower debt which, it is alleged, devolved on her heirs the plaintiff's assig...
Tag this Judgment!Mussammat Sahodra Vs. Ram Babu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-13-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR350
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated April 13, 1937, which affirmed a decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Muttra in favour of the plaintiff dated September 13, 1933.2. The only question for decision is one of law, viz. whether the words 'sister's son' in Section 2 of the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929-which will hereinafter be referred to as 'the Act'-include the son of a half-sister. Section 2 of the Act is as follows :-A son's daughter, daughter's daughter, sister and sister's son shall, in the order so specified, be entitled to rank in the order of succession next after a father's father and before a father's brother :Provided that a sister's son shall not include a son adopted after the sister's death.3. The facts of the case are not in dispute and need not be referred to in detail. The parties are Hindus governed by the law of the Mitakshara. The property in the suit belonged to one Krish...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »