Mumbai Court November 1942 Judgments
Saburdas Mahasukhram Gandhi Vs. Gopalji Nandas Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom283; (1943)45BOMLR526
Lokur, J.1. This is a first appeal by the plaintiff from the decree dismissing his suit for a declaration that the twenty-three decrees obtained by defendants Nos. 7 to 26 against defendants Nos. 1 to 6 were null and void, as they had been obtained illegally and improperly by means of fraud and collusion. The circumstances which led the plaintiff to file the suit are these :-On April 13, 1931, the plaintiff filed Panch Mahals Special Jurisdiction suit No. 3 of 1931 against the defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and the father of defendants Nos. 5 and 6 for the recovery of Rs. 8,857-7-6 due to him: on a; promissory note of Rs. 8,439-2-9 with future interest at nine per cent. per annum. On the very next day-on April 14, 1931-he obtained an interim order for attachment before judgment of fifty-five lots of land out of seventy which belonged to defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and the father of defendants Nos. 5 and 6. Before the interim order was confirmed defendants Nos. 7 to 26 managed to obtain twenty-three...
Tag this Judgment!Ranchhoddas Purshottam and Co. Vs. Ratanji Virpal and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom196; (1943)45BOMLR384
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is a petition for leave to appeal to the Privy Council in rather peculiar circumstances.2. An application was made under Section 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940, challenging the validity of an arbitration agreement, which application was dismissed by Mr. Justice Kania sitting on the Original Side of this High Court. An appeal was brought from his order, but having regard to the provisions of Section 39 of the Indian Arbitration Act, which directs that an appeal shall lie from the orders passed under certain sections of the Act (and from no others), and having regard to the fact that Section 33 is not one of the sections mentioned in Section 39, this Court held that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. But under Sub-clause (2) of Section 39 it is provided :Nothing in this section shall affect or take away any right to appeal to His Majesty in Council.That proviso saves any existing right of appeal to His Majesty in Council, but clearly d...
Tag this Judgment!Totappa Virbhadrappa Jolad Vs. Sharanbasappa Sanganbasappa Jolad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom272; (1943)45BOMLR561
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition filed by the plaintiff against his uncle Totappa, defendant No. 1, and his step-brother Basawaneppa, defendant No. 2. The plaintiff's mother Basawa was impleaded as defendant No. 3, and in her written statement she asked for the separation, of her share also. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 contended that the plaintiff was an idiot by birth and as such was not entitled to any share in the joint family property. The lower Court held that the plaintiff was not an idiot, and ordered a partition and declared that the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 were each entitled to one-sixth share in the joint family property, and defendant No. l to a half share, and ordered that the property assessed to Government be partitioned through the Collector and the rest of the property be partitioned by a Commissioner appointed by the Court, that each sharer be put in possession of the property allotted, and that defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 do pay the ...
Tag this Judgment!Venkatrao Shrinivasrao Vs. Basavprabhu Lakhamgouda Sirdesai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom348; (1943)45BOMLR754
Macklin, J.1. The suits out of which these two appeals arise were brought by the Desai of Vantamuri in respect of two pieces of land both of which were granted as permanent tenancies to the ancestor of the defendants in the two suits respectively (who are father and son) by his father in the year 1873. The documents creating the tenancies were not registered, but it is not disputed that the intention underlying the documents was to create a permanent tenancy in each case. The grantor died in 1877, and on his death the grant would ordinarily come to an end, this being watan property. The grants of 1873 were the result of litigation launched by the grantor in 1871 for the eviction of the ancestor of the two defendants. The suits succeeded; but the holder had been in possession of the property for a long time and had spent a good deal of money in improving it, and it was evidently for this reason that the grants of 1873 were made. In 1924 the plaintiff issued notices to each of the defend...
Tag this Judgment!Maganlal Kishordas Shah Vs. Ramanlal Hiralal Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-23-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom362; (1943)45BOMLR761
Lokur, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for the dissolution of a partnership, or in the alternative, if the partnership be found to have been already dissolved, then for accounts and recovery of the amount found due.2. On August 11, 1924, the plaintiff-appellant entered into an oral agreement of partnership with defendant No. 1 to conduct a cloth shop at Thasra in the name of Ramanlal Maganlal. The plaintiff was to advance the necessary capital on which he was to get interest at six per cent per annum, and the profits and losses were to be shared equally by the two partners. The partnership was dissolved by mutual consent on January 15, 1935. The stock-in-trade, which was valued at Rs. 602, was taken over by defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff was given a promissory note for Rs. 301 as his half share in it. The creditors of the shop were also divided between the partners, and the plaintiff undertook to pay off Rs. 445-8-0 due. by the shop to one Motilal Bhogilal. The accounts...
Tag this Judgment!The Gujarat Oil Mills and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Shakarbhai Motila ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom239; (1943)45BOMLR507
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the First Class Subordinate-Judge of Ahmedabad. The plaintiffs sued to set aside an alienation made by their father on the ground that it was not for necessity or for the benefit of the estate. The learned Judge held that it was not for necessity or for the benefit of the estate. Curiously enough, his decree in terms does not set aside the alienation in question; but, I think, the effect of his judgment is to show that it ought in his view to be set aside, and the relief granted is based on that view.2. In this Court the principal ground argued in appeal is that, assuming that the alienation was not for necessity, the respondent, plaintiff No. 2, who is the sole surviving plaintiff, is not entitled to maintain the suit, because he was not born at the time of the alienation which is challenged. The facts. are that the alienation in question, a permanent lease, was made in 1918 by the father of the plaintiffs in favour of defendant No. 1....
Tag this Judgment!Jethabhai Ranchhodbhai Desai Vs. Bai Chanchal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom257; (1943)45BOMLR504
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against an order made by the District Judge of Kaira, upholding a decision of the First Class Sub-ordinate Judge, and the question arises under the Provincial Insolvency Act, as amended in 1939.2. The position of the original applicant is this. In 1934 she obtained a preliminary mortgage decree for a sum of Rs. 5,425 and costs. The decree has not been translated, but we are told that it was in the ordinary form, and directed payment into Court of the amount stated within six months; on payment the mortgagee to reconvey the property; and on default of payment, liberty to the mortgagee to apply for sale. Then in December, 1934, a final decree was made directing the property to be sold, and giving the mortgagee liberty to apply for a personal decree for the amount of the debt not covered by the proceeds of sale.3. The present application is an application to the First Class Subordinate Judge to serve a notice on the mortgagor u...
Tag this Judgment!Chunilal Pitamberdas Mehta Vs. Bai Saraswati Manilal Pitamberdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom393; (1943)45BOMLR747
Sen, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for maintenance filed by a widow named Bai Saraswati against the brother of her deceased husband Manilal, who died on July 20, 1911, in jointness with the defendant. She claimed allowance at the monthly rate of Rs. 22 and a large amount for past arrears of maintenance. Pitamber, the father of the plaintiff's husband and the defendant, died in 1912. At that date the defendant was in possession of various joint family properties, viz. a house at Ahmedabad, two houses at a place called Bhuvaldi, two fields at Bhuvaldi, and an amount of over Rs. 2,000 realised on a life policy of the plaintiff's husband plus a small amount in the Postal Savings Bank standing in the latter's name.2. The defence was that Bhaishanker, the divided brother of Pitamber, had provided for the plaintiff's maintenance under his will, under which for three years, viz. 1933 to 1936, an amount of Rs. 15 per month had been paid to her. The property inherited by the defendant wa...
Tag this Judgment!Dashrath Motiram Shet Wani Vs. Gajanan Keshav Phadnis
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom381; (1943)45BOMLR740
Broomfield, J.1. This second appeal raises questions of limitation under Sections 19 and 20 of the Indian Limitation Act.2. The appellant brought a suit to recover Rs. 2,900 on a simple mortgage executed on May 22, 1924, by defendant No. 1 for herself and as the guardian of defendant No. 2, who was a minor. Defendant No. 2 is the son of the brother of defendant No. 1's deceased husband. It was provided by the mortgage bond that the sum advanced was to be repaid on or before February 23, 1925. The suit was filed on July 29, 1937, and was prima facie out of time. But it was stated in the plaint that limitation was saved for the following reasons :-(1) on, July 29, 1925, a sum of Rs. 900 was paid on behalf of the mortgagors by one Pandharinath who had purchased some other property from the defendants. At this time defendant No. 1 gave instructions that the money was to be appropriated as to Rs. 365 and odd in payment of interest and as to the balance in payment of principal. So that relia...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Mahadeo Rama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1942
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR295
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application in revision against a conviction of the accused by the Presidency Magistrate, 3rd Additional Court, under Section 498 of the Indian Penal Code. That section, so far as material, provides that whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man from that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, shall be punished.2. Now, the evidence here is that the complainant and his wife had been married for some years, and that some six months before, the wife had left him the accused had been boarding with them. There is no evidence that the accused and the wife were on particularly friendly terms. The wife left her husband, and the accused left the house with her, having, according to her daughter, previously asked' the children to go out of the house by the back door, though I do not think that is a suspicious circumstance. The accused and the wife...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »