Mumbai Court February 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.
Kundanmal Jasraj Marwadi Vs. Surajkuvarbai Tarachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-16-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom455; (1943)45BOMLR859
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on the ground that it was barred under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. Ralli Brothers of Bombay obtained a decree against the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 and one Indrabhan Nemichand as partners of a firm named Kundanmal Narayandas in suit No. 947 of 1932 in the High Court of Bombay. The decree was then assigned by the decree-holders to defendant No. 1, the step-mother of defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 1 made an application to the High Court under Order XXI, Rule 16, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to have her name brought on record and to have the decree transferred to the Ahmednagar Court for execution. A notice was duly issued and served on the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that the assignment was bogus and did not give defendant No. 1 a right to execute the decree. It appears that the plaintiff was called upon to furnish security, and as he failed to do so, the assignment was upheld and defendant N...
Brijlal Ramjidas Vs. Govindram G. Seksaria
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-15-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom201; (1943)45BOMLR358
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decision of Mr. Justice Chagla dismissing the suit on certain preliminary issues. The effect of the learned Judge's decision is that the real substance of the dispute between the parties has been determined by a decision of the High Court of Indore, which is binding between the parties in this suit under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal are these. The plaintiffs and defendants are partners in a firm, the business of which is to act as managing agents of the Indore Malwa United Mills, Limited, a company which owns mills in Indore State, and they carried on business under articles of partnership dated July 17, 1935, which are exhibit A to the plaint. Disputes arose between different groups of partners, and on December 17, 1940, the parties signed a written submission authorizing the Prime Minister of Indore State to arbitrate between them. The terms of the submissio...
Tirkangauda Mallangauda Kashigaudar Vs. Shivappa Patil.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom40; (1943)45BOMLR992
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a dispute regarding the property of Shidlingappa alias Shidalingangouda Kenchanagauda, the watandar patil of Chelgeri in Dharwar District. In 1921 he adopted the defendant, who is the son of his sister Maralshiddavva, and died on March 17, 1926. But for the adoption his heirs would be his nearest agnates Naganagauda, Ujjanagauda and Chanabasappa. Out of these three, only Naganagauda and Ujjanagauda filed this suit for possession of Shidalingappa's property together with Rs. 900 as past mesne profits, future mesne profits and costs, alleging that the defendant's mother Maralshiddavva had been deserted by her husband Basappa, that she led an unchaste life, that the defendant was born to her of an adulterous inter course, that his father was unknown, that as he and his mother had been excommunicated from the Lingayat community, he could not be legally adopted, and that his adoption by Shidlingappa was illegal and invalid.2. The defendant replied that ...
Gajanan Yeshwant Patankar Vs. Govind Ramchandra Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-10-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom446; (1943)45BOMLR851
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Assistant Judge of Thana, There was a mortgage made in 1921 by the plaintiffs and their father, and in 1927 they purported to sell the equity in the property to the mortgagee, who is defendant No 1. In this suit the plaintiffs claim that the sale-deed of 1927 was really a mortgage, as they are entitled to do under Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879, and they ask to have an account of this mortgage taken under Section 15D of the Act. I apprehend if the 1927 sale-deed be really a mortgage, accounts under that deed will necessarily also involve account under the original mortgage, as the whole accounts between the mortgagor and mortgagee will have to be taken.2. The trial Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it did not lie, because the plaintiffs could not claim to treat the sale-deed as a mortgage, and at the same time exercise the privilege conferred by Section 15D by asking for accounts un...
Bhukhandas Valabdas Vs. Chhaganlal Dayaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom32; (1943)45BOMLR854
Lokur, J.1. This appeal raises an important question under Section 10A of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879. The land in suit belonged to Lallu Naran, the father of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who passed a sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 4 on June 22, 1928, purporting to convey the land to him absolutely for Rs. 1,000. Defendant No. 4 then sold it to defendant No. 1 for the same amount on December 17, 1936, and at present it is in defendant No. 1's possession. In the meantime the plaintiff obtained a money decree against defendants Nos. 2 and 3 for Rs. 776 in Suit No. 305 of 1935, and in execution of that decree he got the judgment-debtors' equity of redemption in the land in suit attached, alleging that the sale by their father in favour of defendant No. 4 was intended to be really a mortgage. In Miscellaneous Application No. 110 of 1937 defendant No. 1 objected to the attachment and got the attachment raised. The plaintiff then filed this suit under Order. XXI, Rule 63, ...
Kaderbhai Ismailji Poonawalla Vs. Fatmabai GolamhuseIn Kabira
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom25; (1943)45BOMLR911
Chagla, J.1. This is a suit to enforce a mortgage of Rs. 1,000 dated November 15, 1927. The only defence taken to the suit is that the mortgage is not valid inasmuch as the signature of the mortgagor to the mortgage deed has not been attested by any witness in accordance with the provisions in that behalf prescribed by the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882).2. The mortgage deed is of November 15, 1927, and Mr. G.S. Talpade, an advocate of twenty years' standing of this Court, has deposed before me that he prepared this document. The document is signed by the mortgagor; then there is a receipt clause for Rs. 1,000, The mortgagor admits having received this amount and has signed this clause. Then to the left of the signature of the mortgagor to the receipt clause there is a typed heading 'Witnesses', and under this heading there are the signatures of one Abdeally Mahomedally Gangriwalla and of Mr. G.S. Talpade. Both the advocate, as I have already stated, and Gangriwalla have been cal...
Bhagbati Dei Vs. Muralidhar Sahu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR303
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the High Court, Patna, affirming a decision of the District Judge, Cuttack, allowing an application by a relative of the minor son of the first appellant and the second appellant for the appointment of a guardian of the property of the minor son of the first appellant.2. The position arose in this way : Up to 1919 there was a joint Hindu family consisting of the branches of three brothers Bhaban, Gouranga's. son Muralidhar, the applicant in this case, and Khetrabasi. They had some considerable zemindari properties, and they also carried on a money-lending business.3. In the year 1918 Muralidhar, who was the nephew of the other two members of the family, applied for and obtained a partition. It is significant that the partition proceedings continued between all three members of the family as late as the year 1926. It is said, however, on the present application that Bhaban and Khetrabasi, the two brothers, within a few months, in 1919, ...
Shivappa Gurappa Shettar Vs. Virbhadrappa Shivarudrappa Kalaspur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom423; (1943)45BOMLR844
Lokur J.1. The facts of this case are undisputed. The property in suit belonged to one Totappa Karabasappa who died in 1897 leaving behind him two widows Rachawwa and Rudrawwa but no issue. Before his death he made a will to the effect that after his death his two widows should enjoy his moveable property and the income from his immoveable property, that they should not alienate the immoveable property by sale or mortgage, that if they did not agree, they should divide the property equally between themselves, that on the death of one of them the survivor should enjoy the whole property and that on the death of both of them his next heir Gurappa or his heirs should take possession of and enjoy his immoveable property. Gurappa was Totappa's grand-father's brother's grandson.2. Rachawwa died in 1922 and then the surviving widow Rudrawwa took defendant No. 1 in adoption on March 21, 1927. Gurappa died thereafter in 1934 during Rudrawwa's lifetime, and the plaintiff is his son and heir. Rud...
Kasturchand Jiwaji Vs. Manekchand Devchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1943Bom447; (1943)45BOMLR837
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to recover Rs. 1,005 due on a khata for Rs. 1,000 dated October 17, 1931, followed by another khata for Rs. 1,175 dated September 24, 1934. The suit was filed on September 20, 1937. The defence was that the khatas had not been passed for any cash consideration but for past debts found due on accounts, that the plaintiff used to take similar khatas from time to time, that as one of such previous khatas passed in 1929 was taken after the debt had become time-barred, the khata in suit must be treated as without consideration and that the claim was time-barred.2. The trial Court held that the defendant did not prove that he got no consideration for the transaction in suit evidenced by the khata of 1931 and that the suit transaction was not for balance for past transaction as alleged by defendant No. 1 and that the claim was not time-barred. The plaintiff was therefore given a decree for the amount claimed with future interest and costs.3. In app...
Rameshwardas Poddar Vs. the Paper Sales, Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom21; (1943)45BOMLR906
Chagla, J.1. On November 18, 1942, the defendants sold to the plaintiff 640 gross, 31 1/2' X 41 1/2', 70 lbs. per gross, in all 44,800 lbs. at as. 11 and pies 9 per lb. Dalmia White Duplex paper. The total purchase price for the goods came to Rs. 32,900, and the plaintiff paid that price to the defendants on that very day. On that very day also the defendants handed ever to the plaintiff a delivery order issued by the Dalmia Cement and Paper Marketing Company, Limited, in favour of the defendants bearing No. 370 dated November 18, 1942, for 640 gross.2. On the same day, namely, November 18, 1942, the plaintiff sold the goods to another firm called Pavri Sons & Co, and the plaintiff in his turn handed over the delivery order to Pavri Sons & Co. endorsing thereon as follows :- 'Please deliver to bearer.' Messrs. Pavri Sons & Co. failed to obtain delivery pursuant to this order from the Dalmia Cement and Paper Marketing Company, Limited. Messrs. Pavri Sons & Co. handed back the delivery o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »