Mumbai Court June 1944 Judgments
Savlaram Gangaram Vs. Vishwanath Anant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom386; (1945)47BOMLR320
Macklin, J.1. The property of the judgment-debtor was sold in execution of a mortgage decree and was bought by the decree-holder himself. On coming to take possession he was obstructed, and he had to ask for the help of the Court under Order XXI, Rule 95. The contention of the judgment-debtor was that the property of which the decree-holder-auction-purchaser was trying to take possession had not all been included in the sale; and that question was decided against the judgment-debtor on the ground that it was at any rate included in the mortgage and therefore must be deemed to have been included in the mortgage decree and in the certificate of sale. The judgment-debtor now comes in appeal and is met by a preliminary objection that no appeal lies, since this is not a question arising under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. It appears that there is a conflict of decisions among the various High Courts as to a decree-holder who is also an auction-purchaser being still liable to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Sitaram Sadashiv Paradkar Vs. Vithal Padhye
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom364; (1945)47BOMLR376
Lokur, J,1. The two suits out of which these appeals arise and two other companion suits were filed by four out of five sharers in the sharakati khoti village Choravne in Ratnagiri District, to recover the difference in the survey rates and the mamul rates for the years 1931-32 to 1936-37 from the knots of the village. A village is called sharakati when Government receives a percentage of the land revenue and in this village Government and the inamdars have each an eight annas share. In 1885 Government introduced survey settlement in the village without the consent of the inamdars. Some of the plaintiffs are the descendants of the original inamdar and the others are alienees. The plaintiffs in these two appeals hold one anna share and three annas share and the plaintiffs in the two suits in respect of which there have been no appeals hold five annas share and two annas share respectively. The remaining five annas share is held by Vinayak Govind Dixit Athalye whose name is entered in th...
Tag this Judgment!Madhoram Sand Vs. Kirtya Nand Sinha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR603
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated March 19, 1937, which affirmed granting additional relief to the plaintiffs (respondents before the Board) the decree dated March 28, 1933, passed in their favour by the Subordinate Judge of Purnea.2. The appeal is by defendants 1st party.3. The plaintiff-respondents claimed the suit property which consists of a 2 annas 8 pies share of a certain mahal bearing tauzi No. 1298 in the District of Purnea, as purchasers in execution of a mortgage decree.4. The facts are somewhat complicated, but are not in dispute and may be summarised as follows:-The suit property was originally part of an estate known as the Srinagar Raj, and the lands in tauzi No. 1298 were originally in an estate which bore the No. 1273. The proprietors of the tauzi were three brothers, two of whom Kalikanand and Kamalanand, the sons of Rani Jagrama, held a two-thirds share of it jointly, while the third share was owned sep...
Tag this Judgment!Bhikaji Ramchandra Shimpi Vs. Ajagarally Sarafally Bohori
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-29-1944
Reported in: AIR1946Bom57; (1945)47BOMLR803
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Dhulia dismissing the plaintiff's suit to recover vacant possession of a land purchased by him from a Mahomedan widow and her minor daughter. The land originally belonged to one Abdul Rahiman who mortgaged it to the plaintiff and died leaving a widow Sugarabi and a minor daughter Nyamatbi. After his death the plaintiff obtained a decree on the mortgage against Sugarabi and Nyamatbi, and in execution of the decree in darkhast No. 178 of 1989 the papers were transferred to the Collector for sale of the mortgaged land. Sugarabi having refused to act as the guardian of her minor daughter Nyamatbi, the Nazir of the Court was appointed as her guardian ad litem in the darkhast proceedings. Before the sale was held by the Collector, the parties came to a compromise and Sugarabi made an application to the Court that she had agreed to sell the mortgaged land to the plaintiff (decree-holder) for Rs. 25,000 ...
Tag this Judgment!All India Spinners Assn. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR233
Wright, J.1. This is an appeal from an order dated April 8, 1941, of the High Court of Bombay (Sir J.W.F. Beaumont C.J, and Wadia J.) answering adversely to the appellant a question contained in a reference under Section 66(5) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), made by the respondent dated March 20, 1941.2. The year of assessment concerned is the year 1936-37, the relevant accounting year being the year ended December 31, 1935. Throughout the accounting year and the year of assessment the appellant was an unregistered and unincorporated association of individuals. Its activities consisted in the acquisition of yarn, and also raw cotton, which was then given out to various poor people to be spun by them into yarn all of which yarn was then given out to other poor people for hand-weaving into cloth. The cloth so produced for the appellant was then sold by the appellant. During the relevant accounting year these activities resulted in a profit to the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Zafrul Hasan Vs. Farid-ud-din
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR239
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated November 21, 1935, which set aside a decree of the District Judge of Badaun, dated November 6, 1929, under which the suit of the plaintiff-respondents had been dismissed. No appearance has been made for the respondents in this appeal.2. The principal question is whether a wakfnama, dated June 28, 1915, is valid and operative. It was executed by Chaudri Salah Uddin, who was original defendant No. 2, and was the father of the present respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, who now represent him. Before the Board the validity of the deed was challenged by the appellants on two alternative grounds, viz. that it was a fictitious and colourable deed, never intended to be operative, but made with the intention to avoid payment of debts, or, alternatively, that Chaudri Salah Uddin, who may be conveniently referred to as the settlor, had become a Shia prior to the making of the deed, and was not authorised...
Tag this Judgment!Mohan Chunilal Vs. Digambar Shankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom445; (1945)47BOMLR277
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the sale of Survey Nos. 121 and 127 of Utran in darkhast No. 87 of 1935 is illegal and not binding on the plaintiff, and for an injunction restraining the defendants from taking possession of them. The facts of the case are undisputed. Of the two lands in suit Survey No. 127 was the ancestral property of one Shankar Sampat Patil, and Survey No. 121 belonged to the defendants who agreed to sell it to Shankar Sampat Patil for Rs. 7,000. Under that agreement Shankar was to pay Rs. 4,000 at once, and the balance of Rs. 3,000 with interest within a year. Shankar paid Rs, 4,000 to the defendants in January 1921, and took possession of the land, but he failed to pay the balance, and died in February, 1923. He left no issue; and his heirs were his two widows, Sakhubai and Banubai, but his mother, Rangubai, having taken wrongful possession of his property, Sakhubai and Banubai filed a suit against her and recovered possession o...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Goma Rama
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom152; (1944)46BOMLR811
Divatia, J.1. After setting out the facts of the case His Lordship proceeded as follows : The main point urged by Mr. Jahagirdar on behalf of the appellants is that the learned Judge below seriously misdirected the jury in asking them to accept the part of the confessions of the accused consisting of statements about their having committed several acts of sabotage along with other persons who are not accused in this case, and to accept the Police Sub-Inspector's evidence who produced a register of crimes in which some of the acts admitted by the accused in their confessions had been noted. Mr. Jahagirdai has contended that this evidence is inadmissible in law and the misdirection consisted in asking the jury to rely upon this part of the evidence by way of corroboration of the .retracted confession of the particular offence with which they were charged in the present case. To give one instance of what the accused stated in their confessions, accused No. 1 began by saying that he and on...
Tag this Judgment!Shankar Hari Vs. Damodar Vyankaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom380; (1945)47BOMLR104
Lokur, J.1. This appeal under the Letters Patent from a decision of Mr. Justice Divatia arises out of execution proceedings. The decree sought to be executed was obtained by one Meghnath against eight defendants, of whom the appellants were defendants Nos. 7 and 8, for the recovery of Rs. 2,431-1-9 and costs of the suit. The decree was passed on September 1, 1923. Meghnath filed a darkhast to execute the decree and it was disposed of on April 15, 1926. Meghnath then recovered Rs. 400 out of Court and transferred the decree by a deed of assignment to one Maruti and the respondent Damodar on April 15, 1926. On July 7, 1926, the appellants paid Rs. 814 to Maruti out of Court and were absolved by him from all further liability under the decree. The other assignee Damodar, the present respondent, then presented darkhast No. 160 of 1929 against defendants Nos. 1 and 5 only, and it was disposed of on April 15, 1929. The next darkhast was filed by him against defendant No. 2 alone, and it was ...
Tag this Judgment!John Nadjarian Vs. E. F. Trist
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom399; (1945)47BOMLR209
Chagla, J.1. After setting out the facts of the case, the judgment proceeded. It was held at one time by some of the Courts in India that the estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, only arises in favour of a landlord who puts the tenant into possession, but if the tenant had already been in possession, the estoppel did not arise, and it was competent to the tenant to show that his landlord had no title. The decision of the Privy Council in Krishna Prosad Lal v. Baraboni Coal Concern, Limited : (1937)39BOMLR1034 has made it clear that there is no warrant for reading into Section 116 the qualifying words that the landlord contemplated there is the landlord who put the tenant into possession or that the beginning of the tenancy referred to in that section means only the tenancy begun by the tenant being put into possession. The estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act is wide enough to cover any case of a grantee who occupies and enjoys under a grant dis...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »