Mumbai Court January 1943 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.
Sardar Sarjerao Appajirao Shitole Vs. Government of Province of Bombay ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom427
Macklin, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by the inamdar of Ankli for a declaration that he is entitled to the entire alluvion formed in front of his survey No. 54 of Ankli, a declaration that the order of the commissioner in that respect is illegal and ultra vires, and an injunction restraining the defendants from giving effect to the commissioner's order. The principal defendants to the action are the Secretary of State (defendant 1) and the owner of survey Nos. 170 and 171 of Nasalapur, a village in the Kolhapur State (defendants). The land of the plaintiff has to the east of it a perennial stream, and, on the facts of this case, it seems that at the time of the revision survey in 1899 the boundary between the plaintiff's land and the land of defendant 2 was the middle of this stream. But since then for one reason or another the stream has been gradually shifting to the east, with the result that alluvial soil is deposited on the land of the plaintiff and the defendant's...
Tribhovandas Manchharam Vs. C.R. Contractor's Company
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom416
ORDERLokur, J.1. This is an application in revision against the decree in a Small Cause suit passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge at Broach invested with Small Cause Court powers. The suit was filed by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 462-1-3 said to be due in respect of goods supplied to the defendant. The defendant contended that there was no privity of contract between him and the plaintiff, that the goods had been supplied to him by one Chunibhai J. Patel and not by the plaintiff's firm, that as the said firm of Chunibhai J. Patel had not been registered, the suit was not maintainable, that there had been a settlement of the accounts and he had sent a cheque for Rs. 87-3-6 and that the amount claimed was not due. These pleadings raised several questions of law and fact and a good deal of oral evidence was recorded on several days between 27th October 1941, when the plaintiff was examined, and 8th April 1942, when the defendant closed his case. Arguments were heard on 15th June 1...
Ambaram Popat Vankar Vs. Budhalal Mahasukram Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom443; (1943)45BOMLR795
Jonh Beaumont, C.J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against an order made by Mr. Justice Wassoodew in second appeal, and it raises the question, whether under the Indian Easements Act a lessee can acquire a right to light over adjoining property which belongs to his landlord.2. The plaintiff possessed a lease granted to him in 1905 of land on which he erected a building in 1906, which building had windows overlooking the adjoining land which belonged to the plaintiff's lessor, In 1920 there was a division of the freehold interest, the freehold of the land leased to the plaintiff going to the sons of the former owner, and the freehold of the alleged servient tenement, to his grandsons. In 1928 the plaintiff acquired the freehold of the property on which he held the lease, and in 1934 the defendant acquired the adjoining land, that is to say, the alleged servient tenement.' This suit was filed in December, 1935. It is, therefore, clear that the plaintiff cannot prove twenty ...
Dattatraya Putto Honnangi Vs. Tulsabai Chidambar Honnangi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom412; (1943)45BOMLR802
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a second appeal from the Assistant Judge of Belgaum, and it raises an interesting and important question on the construction of Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, on which there appears to be no direct authority. The facts found are, that the plaintiff is the widow of a man who was possessed of four fields at the time of his death. Defendant No. 1 is the only son of that man. After defendant No. 1 attained his majority he sold the four fields. He sold one of them on May 30, 1935, to defendant No. 2, who is the present appellant, a second one on June 29 of the same year to defendant No. 2; a third field in August 1935 to defendants Nos. 3 and 4, and the fourth field, in January 1936, to defendant No. 2. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had no notice of the existence of the plaintiff as a widow of the vendor's father. But defendant No. 2 knew of her existence and he also knew that the property was ancestral property. On those facts the plaintiff sued f...
Emperor Vs. Shankar Papayya Padamsali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1943
Reported in: (1943)45BOMLR310
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J. 1. This is an application in revision against the conviction of the accused under Rule 56(4) of the Defence of India Rule's, 1939, by the First Class Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Ahmednagar. A revision application against the conviction was dismissed by the Sessions Judge.2. Rule 56 of the Defence of India Rules provides, so far as material, that the Provincial Government may, for the purpose of securing the defence of British India, the public safety, the maintenance of public order or the efficient prosecution of the War, by general or special order, prohibit, restrict or impose conditions upon, the holding or taking part in public processions, meetings or assemblies. Sub-clause (4) is the penal provision. It is to be noticed that the order can restrict the holding or taking part in public processions, meetings or assemblies; it has nothing to do with private processions, meetings or assemblies.3. On August 9, 1942, the Government of Bombay promulgated an ord...
The Apollo Mills, Ltd. Vs. Babubhai Chandulal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom12; (1943)45BOMLR904
Chagla, J.1. There were disputes between the plaintiffs and the defendants in the year 1938 which were referred to the arbitration of Mr. T.V. Baddeley and Mr. Dewji Damodar. The arbitrators duly made and published their award on July 15, 1940. This suit is filed to enforce that award. The award is not challenged on its merits, but the contention is taken that the suit is not maintainable. This contention is based on the argument that the award haying been given on July 15, 1940, and the present Arbitration Act (X of 1940) having come into force on July 1, 1940, a suit on the award is barred under Section 17 of the Act. In order to decide that contention, the question that has got to be determined is whether this award is governed by the provisions of the new Act or by the provisions of the old Act which was repealed, by the new Act. Mr. M.S. Vakil for the defendants has relied on Section 48 of the new Act. Section 48 provides that all references pending at the commencement of the new ...
Bai Kamala Vs. Shankerrao Laxmanrao Jadhav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom407; (1943)45BOMLR791
Macklin, J.1. The plaintiff to this action claimed Rs. 1,500, which he said was due to him under a writing in the account books of one Jadavji dated January 6, 1937. The writing stated that the plaintiff had helped Jadavji for the last two years and worked for him, and that a khata for Rs. 1,500 was therefore executed that day for his remuneration and the money would be paid without interest when Jadavji's monetary condition became easy. The cause of action for the suit was stated to be this agreement; and although an issue was framed and found in favour of the plaintiff as to the plaintiff having been engaged on a salary of Rs. 750 a year, it is clear that the suit throughout was tried as a suit based upon the agreement of January 6, 1937. The trial Court dismissed the suit because the agreement could not be regarded as a promissory note, since it did not contain an unconditional promise to pay, and, if it was to be regarded otherwise than in the light of a promissory note, the money ...
Mahadev Shankar Lokhande Vs. Shankar Swamirao Lokhande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom387; (1943)45BOMLR782
Divatia, J.1. [His Lordship stated the facts of the case and on examining the facts of the case arrived at the conclusion that the mortgage as well as the sale transactions were for legal necessity and were not for illegal or immoral purposes. The judgment then proceeded :] The main argument based on legal ground is that in the previous suit by defendants Nos. 3 to 5 the plaintiff's father was appointed his guardian ad litem in spite of a conflict of interest between them in disregard of the provisions of Order XXXII, Rule 4, of the Civil Procedure Code, and that, therefore, the compromise decree was not binding on the plaintiff irrespective of the merits of his contention in the present suit. The alleged conflict is that it would always be in the interest of the father to pay off his debts from the joint estate in which his minor son has a share even though the debts were illegal and immoral and as such not binding on the son, and that in a suit by the creditor against the father and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›