Mumbai Court August 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.
Govind Ramchandra Chitale Vs. Gangadhar Mahadeo Wadekar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom246; (1944)46BOMLR417
Divatia, J.1. These are two appeals filed by the same appellant who was the plaintiff in both the suits. In First Appeal No. 150 of 1940 the suit was against thirteen persons who were at one time members of the Lonavla Municipality and in Second Appeal No. 528 of 1940 it was against the Chief Officer of the Municipality at that time. Both the suits were filed for recovering damages for libel of the plaintiff who is a lawyer practising at Lonavla. At one time ha was a member and the Chairman of the School Board, though he was not a councillor of the Municipality itself. He had filed several cases on behalf of his clients against the Municipality. The members of the Municipality thought that in those suits he had made certain false and vexatious statements against the Municipality to his knowledge and on March 7, 1936, they passed a resolution that in view of the fact that the Municipality had been burdened with a large number of suits, the Board considered that the defensive policy hith...
Bajirao Madhavrao Subhedar Vs. Wamanrao Alias Bhayyasaheb Purshottamda ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom243(1); (1944)46BOMLR421
Lokur, J.1. This is an application in revision against the order of the Second Subordinate Judge at Dharwar under Order XXII, Rule 3(1), of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, allowing the opponent Wamanrao to proceed with suit No. 235 of 1940 filed by his cousin's widow Radhabai as her legal representative on her death. Radhabai filed that suit against the petitioner Bajirao, who was claiming to be her adopted son, for a declaration that she had not taken him in adoption and that he was not her legally adopted son. When the suit was pending, Radhabai died on June 5, 1941, and on July 16, 1941, her husband's cousin Wamanrao made an application that he was her legal representative and should be brought on record to continue the suit. The application was opposed on the ground that the defendant himself was Radhabai's legal representative as her adopted son and, therefore, the right of suit did not survive after her death, and that in any case Wamanrao could not be her legal representative un...
Champaklal Purshottamdas Vs. Bai Narbadabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR749
Chagla, J.1. This suit was filed on April 3, 1940, by plaintiff No., 1 and the original plaintiff No. 2 against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as the executors of one Gordhandas Ranchhodas Bhagat. The suit is to enforce a public charitable trust and was filed with leave obtained from the Advocate General under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The1 defendants filed their written statement on July 1, 1940, and one of the points taken was that the suit was bad for non-joinder inasmuch as Shapurji Rustomji Bhownagri was a necessary party to the suit because he was appointed a trustee along with defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to carry out the trusts created by the will of Gordhandas Ranchhoddas Bhagat. On November 14, 1940, a consent order was taken in chambers whereby Shapurji Rustomji Bhownagri was brought on re cord as defendant No. 4 to the suit. Before bringing him on record and amending the plaint and proceedings, pursuant to the chamber order I have just referred, no leave of th...
Champaklal Purshottamdas and anr. Vs. Bai Narbadabai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Bom74
Chagla, J.1. This suit was filed on 3rd April 1940, by plaintiff 1 and the original plaintiff 2 against defendants 1, 2 and 3 as the executors of one Gordhandas Ranchhoddas Bhagat. The suit is to enforce a public charitable trust and was filed with leave obtained from the Advocate-General under Section 92, Civil P.C., 1908. The defendants filed their written statement on 1st July 1940, and one of the points taken was that the suit was bad for non-joinder inasmuch as Shapurji Rustomji Bhownagri was a necessary party to the suit because he was appointed a trustee along with defendants 1, 2 and 3 to carry out the trusts created by the will of Gordhandas Ranchhoddas Bhagat. On 14th November 1940, a consent order was taken in chambers whereby Shapurji Rustomji Bhownagri was brought on record as defendant 4 to the suit. Before bringing him on record and amending the plaint and proceedings pursuant to the chamber order I have just referred, no leave of the Advocate-General was taken under Sec...
Achyut Gopal Mhetras Vs. Gopalrao Ramchanda Mhetras
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom232; (1944)46BOMLR415
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application to set aside an order made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur rejecting an application for leave to sue as a pauper.2. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs are paupers, but the learned Judge rejected the application on the ground that the plaint disclosed no cause of action. The application was in the correct form under Order XXXIII, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and under Rule 4 it was open to the Court, if it thought fit, to examine the applicant or his agent regarding the merits of the claim and the property of the applicant, and under Rule 5 the Court is bound to reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper upon the grounds specified, one of them being where his allegations do not show a cause of action, this Court recently had occasion to consider the scheme of Order XXXIII in Burjorji Baria v. Murlidhar Sidhgopal : AIR1943Bom318 , and we pointed out that the application, when dealt with under Rule ...
Raja Braja Sunder Deb Vs. Bamdeb Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1943
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR566
Porter, J.1. This appeal by special leave from the High Court of Patna dated January 25, 1938, raises the question whether the appellants who were plaintiffs in the original suit are entitled to succeed in an action against the defendants for malicious prosecution2. Plaintiff No. 1 is the Raja of Aul, once an independent tributary State in Orissa, but now an ordinary zemindari subject to the laws of British India. He is a Khetriya by caste. Appellant No. 2 is the son of the original plaintiff No. 2, Krishna Chandra Jagati, deceased, and has been duly substituted for him in the proceedings. Both the original plaintiffs Nos. 2 and 3 were servants of plaintiff No. 1. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the sons and legal personal representatives of the original defendant No. 1, Bamdeb Das, alias Patnaik, who was the father of one Jugal Kishore Das and was related to one Harikrishna Mahanty, now deceased. Defendant No. 2 is a nephew of defendant No. 3 who was a cousin of Harikrishna Mahanty. Thes...
The Government of the Province of Bombay Vs. the Ahmedabad Sarangpur M ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom244; (1944)46BOMLR413
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. These are two appeals by the Government of the Province of Bombay against orders made by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad.2. Appeal No. 188 of 1940 is the only one in which there is any substance, and that arises in this manner. On June 26, 1917, a sanad was granted by the Collector of Ahmedabad purporting to act on behalf of the Secretary of State for India, by which liberty was granted to the plaintiff to construct buildings in Survey Nos. 29, 30 and 31 on the conditions stated in the sanad, and the annual assessment was to be Rs. 510 for fifty years from August 1, 1915, and there was a clause enabling the assessment to be revised within certain limits. In 1921, the plaintiff wanted to make certain modifications in his buildings, and a fresh sanad was granted on July 27, 1922. That sanad was not granted in the form of an agreement like the agreement of 1917, but it was executed by the Collector of Ahmedabad on behalf of the Secretary of State ...
Champaklal Chimanlal Vs. Amubhai Dahyabhai Sodagar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1943
Reported in: (1944)46BOMLR625
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 7 to 11 in a suit for partition. The parties to the suit were the sons, grandsons and the widow of one Bahyabhai Sodagar who died in 1906 leaving eight sons. The eldest son Mohanbhai died in 1923. One of the other sons, Chimanlal, died on September 20, 1934, leaving five sons. The plaintiff in the suit is Amubhai, one of the sons of Dahyabhai. Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are his brothers Hirabhai, Bholabhai, Manilal and Lalbhai. Defendant No. 5 was Shantilal who died on April 110, 1936, after the present suit was filed on November 8, 1935. Defendant No. 6 was Dahyabhai's widow, Bai Mangu, who died pending the suit and defendants Nos. 7 to 11 are the sons of deceased Chimanlal. The family had moveable as well as immoveable properties at Ahmedabad. There is no dispute with regard to immoveable property. The only disputes between the parties with which we are concerned relate to the money value of a broker's card in the Native Share and...
Pandurang Vithoba Patil Vs. Shamrao Bhau Patil
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1944Bom272; (1944)46BOMLR618
Lokur, J.1. This appeal raises an important question regarding the interpretation of the second paragraph of Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879.2. The respondent obtained a money decree for Rs. 274 and odd against the appellant who was then not an agriculturist. The respondent then filed a darkhast to recover the decretal amount, and as by that time the appellant had acquired the status of an agriculturist, the respondent requested the Court to direct the Collector to take possession of his land under the second para of Section 22 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act for the satisfaction of the decree out of its income. The appellant contended that as he was not an agriculturist at the date of the decree, the Collector could not be asked to take possession of his land under that section. Both the Courts below held that para. 2 of Section 22 was applicable and ordered the darkhast to proceed.3. The first paragraph of Section 22 provides that immoveable prope...
Champaklal Chimanlal and ors. Vs. Amubhai Dahyabhai Sodagar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1943
Reported in: AIR1945Bom28
Divatia J.1. This is an appeal by defendants 7 to 11 in a suit for partition. The parties to the suit were the sons, grandsons and the widow of one Dahyabhai Sodagar who died in 1906 leaving eight sons. The eldest son Mohanbhai died in 1923. One of the other sons, Chimanlal, died on 20th September 1934, leaving five sons. The plaintiff in the suit is Amubhai, one of the sons of Dahyabhai. Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 4 are his brothers Hirabhai, Bholabhai, Manilal and Lalbhai. Defendant 5 was Shantilal who died on 10th April 1936, after the present suit was filed on 8th November 1935. Defendant 6 was Dahyabhai's widow, Bai 'Mangu, who died pending the suit and defendants 7 to 11 are the sons of deceased Chimanlal. The family had moveable as well as immovable properties at Ahmedabad. There is no dispute with regard to immovable property. The only disputes between the parties with which we are concerned relate to the money value of a broker's card in the Native Share and Stock Brokers' Associa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »