Mumbai Court June 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.
Dattatraya Vasudev Khatkul Vs. Parashram Anant Moghe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom218; (1944)46BOMLR363
Lokur, J.1. This appeal involves a question of considerable importance under the Khoti Settlement Act, 1880.2. The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff and defendants Nos. 2 to 17 are co-sharers in the khotki of the village Kasheli in Ratnagiri District. Defendant No. 1 is a permanent tenant of khata No. 84 in that village. I may mention here that before the amendment of Section 3(4) of the Khoti Settlement Act, 1880, by Section 85(b) of Bombay Act IV of 1913, permanent tenants were styled 'occupancy tenants.' In accordance with the Recording officer's tharav or decision, defendant No. 1 and his predecessors were paying to the khot that (rent) at three times the survey assessment in respect of their khata No. 84. This went on till defendant No. 2 became the managing khot for 1935-36. Defendant No. 1 then made an application to the Recording-officer requesting that his liability in respect of khata No. 84 should be fixed at survey assessment and local fund cess only. Defendant No. 2 ...
Ramchandra Gururao Joshi Vs. Kamalabai Sheshagirirao Sarathi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-28-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom191; (1944)46BOMLR358
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in execution proceedings of a decree for past as well as future maintenance obtained by Ambabai, a widow, against the defendants. It is a compromise decree under which certain properties having fallen to the share of the different defendants were separately charged for the amount of the widow's maintenance. We are only concerned in this litigation with one property, Survey No. 3, at Shinganapur, which in the division of the defendants' family came to the share of the first defendant and which according to the plaintiff-widow has been charged for her maintenance. This property has been purchased during the pendency of the suit from the first defendant by the present appellant who was not a party to the suit but who was made a party in the execution proceedings as opponent No. 4. This purchase took place on September 8, 1921, after the suit was filed on June 30 of the same year. On September 13, 1922, there was a compromise between the parties and on Sept...
Debi Prasad Sharma Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR11
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by which the appellants were severally found guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced to fine or imprisonment and in the case of the third appellant to imprisonment only. The first two appellants are respectively the printer and publisher and the editor of the Hindustan Times, a daily newspaper published in Delhi and having a large circulation in the United Provinces. The third appellant is the local correspondent of the newspaper at Meerut and at the material date had been so employed for the past seven years. In July, 1941, the Sessions Judge at Meerut, Mr. Hari Shankar Vidyarthi, had been engaged in the trial of twenty persons charged with murder, rioting, etc., which ended on July 31, 1941, when the Judge convicted four of the accused and sentenced them to transportation for life. The remaining sixteen were acquitted. On August 1, appellant No. 3, Mr. Singhal, sent the following news item to...
Nathalal Ichhashankar Vs. Bai Manek
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom196; (1944)46BOMLR356
Lokur, J.1. This appeal raises a question of interpretation of a will executed by one Prabhashankar Lakshmiram on December 8, 1904. He died leaving his widow, Bai Jekor, two daughters Bai Saraswati, the plaintiff, and Parwati, and a nephew Nathalal, the defendant. The execution of the will is not disputed. In that will he stated that some property was his self acquisition and some was joint property of himself and his brotherIchhashankar, the defendant's father, but that they were separated and were living separate for many years. He then proceeded to dispose of his share in the joint property as follows :-After deducting three kumbhas which I have already given away, my half share is to be enjoyed by my wife during her lifetime and after her death it (that half share) should be given to my brother's son Natha Ichhashankar if he remains obedient to my wife and attends to her affairs and renders service to her. He should properly meet the expenses of her obsequies.2. Bai Jekor, the wido...
Tyebhoy Essofalli Thingna Vs. the Collector
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom91; (1943)45BOMLR1055
Lokur, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the District Judge of Ahmedabad passed in an inquiry held under Section 6C of the Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923, as amended by Bombay Act XVIII of 1935. The petitioner is the managing trustee of the Matekati Charitable Properties Trust situated at Ahmedabad and Surat. The trust was created by a deed executed on July 6, 1911. The deed provides that after payment of all taxes, dues and assessments payable in respect of the trust premises and other expenses for repairs, insurance, etc., the trustees appointed by the deed should apply not less than half the net income towards the establishment, continuance and maintenance at Surat of a charitable dispensary, a hospital and a maternity hospital to be named 'The Maskati Charitable Dispensary and Hospitals', and divide the balance of the net income into eight equal shares between the settlor's sons and daughters during their respective lives and after their deaths among their legi...
Thakur Shah Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR513
Porter, J.1. This is an appeal against a conviction for abetment of forgery under Section 466 combined with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The appellant was charged with abetting one Jagannath Singh and one Matuk Chandra Das in forging a certain decree sheet and compromise petition, which are Court records and was found guilty by the Sessions Judge of the Santal Parganas. This conviction was upheld by the High Court at Patna. The history of the case has been fully and accurately stated in the judgment of Chatterji J. in the High Court and need not be repeated at length here. It is only necessary to set out sufficient facts to make this judgment comprehensible.3. In 1934, the appellant, one Buchai, and his son Khudi were parties to a suit for the partition of their joint family property, a suit which was eventually compromised. In order to effect their purpose the parties on December 13, 1935, filed a compromise petition in accordance with which a decree of the Court was drawn ...
Rohani Ramandhwaj Prasad Singh Vs. Har Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-24-1943
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR557
George Rankin, J.1. The appellant is the proprietor of an estate called the Biswan Estate at Aligarh. In 1983 respondent No. 3, Mahabir Singh, herein called 'the plaintiff' brought a suit in farma pauperis claiming the estate and seeking to eject the appellant's elder brother who was then in possession. The elder brother died while the suit was pending and the appellant who was a minor at the time was substituted in his stead as the defendant and the Court of Wards acted on his behalf. The trial Court gave decree for the plaintiff on June 2, 1925, but on February 12, 1929, the High Court at Allahabad reversed this decision and dismissed the suit. Their decree was confirmed upon appeal to His Majesty in Council.2. On February 16, 1926, while the case was pending before it the High Court ordered that the plaintiff should be put in possession of the estate in execution of the trial Court's decree on his depositing in the trial Court security in the sum of Rs. 42,000. On April 1, 1926, one...
Jadavkumar Liladhar Mainthia Vs. Pushpabai Mainthia Nee.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom29; (1943)45BOMLR924
Chagla, J.1. The plaintiff's evidence is that after the marriage ceremony was performed by the Brahmin he wrote out a document in plaintiff's presence and signed it. Mr. Bhagwati says that he is not in a position to call this Brahmin and he tenders this document under Section 32, Sub-clause (5), of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 32 makes statements of relevant facts relevant in cases where the person making the statement is dead or cannot be found or has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable. In this case Mr, Bhagwati urges that the Brahmin cannot be found and, therefore, Section 32 is applicable.2. It will be noticed that the statement tendered is with reference to one of the most important issues in the case, namely, whether the requisite and essential ceremonies constituting a valid Hindu marriage were or were not performed...
Bai Madhukanta Vs. Kantilal Mohanlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom58; (1943)45BOMLR1052
Lokur, J.1. This is an application in revision against an order passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad calling upon the petitioner to pay court-fees on the amount of her share before she could recover its possession from the receiver. The plaintiff Kantilal filed suit No. 883 of 1930 for partition and obtained a preliminary decree. When cross appeals were pending against that decree in this Court, the dispute was referred to arbitrators and ultimately a decree for partition was passed in terms of the award given by them. By that decree the plaintiff and the defendants were given specific shares in the property in suit. During the pendency of the litigation a receiver had been appointed, and after the award decree the plaintiff recovered the share allotted to him from the receiver. The decree was duly stamped as a deed of partition and registered. But when the petitioner, who was defendant No. 2 in the suit, made an application to be put into possession of her share, t...
Anant Govind Ginde Vs. Dnyaneshwar Balkrishna Ginde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-21-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom195; (1944)46BOMLR353
Divatia, J. 1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit to recover possession of certain lands belonging to one deceased Balkrishna. Both the lower Courts have decreed the plaintiff's claim on the ground that he is entitled to the lands by virtue of his adoption made by Balkrishna's widow, Yesubai.2. The facts as found are that the suit property belonged to Balkrishna who died leaving behind him his widow Yesubai and two sons Anant and Vithal. Thereafter Anant died on October 2, 1901, without leaving any issue, and his widow also died a few days later on the 18th of the same month. About four or five years thereafter Vithal died unmarried, with the result that the only person surviving in the family was the widow Yesubai. She adopted the plaintiff on December 7, 1932, and died on the 18th of the same month. The suit properties were then taken possession of by defendant No. 1, who claimed to be an agnate of Balkrishna. The plaintiff's case is that by virtue of his adoption he was e...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »