Mumbai Court September 1942 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.
Bondru Avasu Mahajan Vs. Dagadu Ekoba Dhake
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom246; (1943)45BOMLR438
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for a declaration that he was discharged from liability as surety for the fulfilment of a decree against the judgment-debtor in a previous suit, and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from executing the decree against him.2. The facts are shortly these :-Defendant No. 1 obtained a money decree against defendant No. 2 in 1925 Defendant No. 2 then filed a suit in 1926 to set aside the decree and applied for stay of execution pending the disposal of his suit. The Court granted stay on furnishing security. The plaintiff accordingly stood surety for defendant No. 2 for the fulfilment of the decree in the first suit. Defendant No. 2's suit was dismissed. Thereafter on December 4, 1934, there was an adjustment of the decree in the first suit between defendants Nos. 1 and 2 by which it was settled that defendant No. 2 should pay to defendant No. 1 Rs. 3,000 by annual instalments of Rs. 500. It is clear that that adjustment v...
Shripad Balvant Kasture Vs. Nagu Kushaba Kate
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom301; (1943)45BOMLR109
Broomfield, J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken that this appealhas abated because appellant No. 2 died on August 12, 1937, and a belatedapplication by his sons to be brought on record was dismissed on March 5,1941. Mr. Bakhale who appears for the respondent cites Vagha v. Manilal (1934) 37 Bom. L.R. 249and argues that because the appellant-plaintiffs are joint owners they mustall be parties to the appeal, and as the appeal has abated in the case of appellant No. 2, it should be taken to have abated altogether. We think thatthere is no substance however in this point.2. It appears that the appellants sold all their rights to a third party, avahivatdar of a temple at Satara, on July 31, 1936, after which they ceasedto be interested in the property in dispute. The new; owner has been madeappellant and permitted to proceed with the appeal by an order of this Courtmade on June 25, 1941. Mr. Bakhale has contended that this order shouldnot have been made because the appeal had abated...
Chanmallappa Shivlingappa Dankare Vs. Vannaji Sakalchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-04-1942
Reported in: AIR1943Bom241; (1943)45BOMLR457
Broomfield, J.1. The question for decision in this second appeal is this. When there has been a decree against a Hindu father for a debt binding on his sons as not being illegal or, immoral and a partition takes place between him and his sons after the decree, can the decree be executed, by attachment and sale of the properties which have come to the sons under the partition, or must the judgment-creditor bring a separate suit ?2. The facts of the case' are as follows. The respondent obtained a money decree against two brothers on January 24, 1933 After the decree there were disputes between the first brother judgment-debtor No. 1 and his sons who are the present appellants. The disputes were referred to arbitration, and on January 4, 1935, the arbitrator effected a, partition, the terms of which were embodied' in a decree. On August 31, 1935, the respondent filed a darkhast against judgment-debtor No. 1. On March 14, 1936, he made the sons, i.e. the present appellants, parties to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›