Mumbai Court July 1944 Judgments
Patali Begum Vs. Yeshwant Thite
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom317; (1945)47BOMLR112
Chagla, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff to challenge an order passed by the District Deputy Collector of Satara on December 17, 1923. The plaintiff alleged that the suit land was the service inam land of the defendant Kazi family ; that the defendant's ancestors granted the land by way of gift to his ancestor free of any assessment; that the District Deputy Collector, Satara, levied full assessment on the plaint land by his order dated December 17, 1923, at the instance of the defendant's father and that the order was ultra vires.2. The District Deputy Collector in passing the order of December 17, 1923, purported to act under the Watan Act, and the only question that really arises in this appeal is whether the Watan Act applied to the lands held by the defendant's ancestors as Kazis. Mr. S.G. Patwardhan for the appellants has contended that the office of a Kazi is a hereditary office and that the lands given to the Kazis as service inam lands a...
Tag this Judgment!Shambhu Nath Vs. Pushkar Nath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR595
Porter, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Lahore, dated May 15, 1942, Which modified in favour of respondent No. 1 a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Delhi. The suit was initiated for the partition of the estate of Pandit Basheshwar Nath Shivpuri who had recently died. The appellant is one of his nephews. There were four defendants, and the relationship of the parties one to the other is shown by the table following :Jawala Nath_____________________________|_________________________________| | | || | | |Bishambar Niranjan Basheshwar = Mussammat Amar = MussammatNath Nath Nath Radhika Rani Nath Tej Rani| | (died on (died in 1930) (died in| | 22-7-1938) 1919)| _|____________________________ || | | | || | | | || Autar Tribhawan Shambhu Ram Nath = Mussammat| Nath Nath Nath (dead) Janak Dulari | (defendant 2) (defendant 3) (plaintiff)_____________________________________________________________| | || | |Hirdey Nath = Mussammat Pushkar Nath Dina Nath(died on Iqbal Ra...
Tag this Judgment!Shri Udasi Nirwani Vs. Surajpal Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR599
Porter, J.1. The appellant in this case is a registered society which carries on the business of money-lending. It appeals from a decree of the High Court at Allahabad, dated February 8, 1939, which varied the decree of the Subordinate Judge.2. The respondents are members of a joint undivided Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara school. The decree of which complaint is made, was pronounced in an action brought by the appellant upon a simple mortgage dated September 22, 1920. The family tree of the Hindu family and the members sued appear from the table following: Hanuman Singh (died many years ago). ._____________________________________|______________________________. | | | | | |Mahabal Singh = Lakhpati Kunwar Brijmangal Singh Sheo Mangal Singh(died 1919) (defendant No. 7, (died 1905). (defendant No. 1). respondent No. 5). | | | | _______________|______________________________|____ | | | | | | Surajpal Singh Baram Din Singh Dharampal Singh (defendant No. 2) (defendant No. 3, (died...
Tag this Judgment!Shripad Laxman Nakadi Vs. Kashibai Dinkar Jog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom248; (1945)47BOMLR108
Lokur, J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether the holder of a mortgage decree is entitled to have his decree satisfied by the sale of an accession made to the mortgaged property after the passing of the decree. It arises in this way. In 1887 one Mahadeo Vithoba Nakadi, along with his brother Venkoba as his surety, mortgaged his shop, Municipal Survey No. 915 in Belgaum, to one Umabai, and on October 28, 1910, an award decree was passed, which declared that Rs. 2,700 were due to Umabai and provided that the amount should be paid by annual instalments of Rs. 150, and that in default of payment of two consecutive instalments the mortgagee should recover the amount due to her by sale of the shop and also from the person and property of the mortgagor's son Laxman,-the original mortgagor having died in the meantime. The mortgaged shop was destroyed by fire in 1921 and another shop building was constructed in its place. Umabai having died, her heirs presented a darkhast in 1934 to r...
Tag this Judgment!Leelachand Walchand Gujar Vs. Vishnu Ganesh Lakade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom409; (1945)47BOMLR330
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal against an order passed by the Assistant Judge of Satara in Civil Appeal No. 193 of 1939 confirming the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Vita in Civil Suit No. 214 of 1937. The appellants in this case were the original defendants, and the suit against them was filed by one Ekanath Bala Lakade under somewhat peculiar circumstances.2. The property involved in this litigation is revision Survey Nos. 204 and 277 of the village of Chitali in Khanapur Taluka of Satara District. The survey numbers originally belonged to one Maruti Lingu and his nephew Dnyanoba, Maruti Lingu having three-fourths share and Dnyanoba having one-fourth share in the two revision survey numbers. The property had been mortgaged in the year 1864 by Maruti Lingu and Dnyanoba's father Aba to one Chimappa Mahajan for Rs. 1,700. During the pendency of this mortgage, Dnyanoba sold his one fourth share in one of the revision survey numbers, viz. No. 277, to one Aba Nana on May 7, 1917,...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Jivangouda Vs. Puttabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR1
Madhavan Nair, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated January 14, 1938, affirming a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar dated October 31, 1936, and an order of that Judge dated November 21, 1936.2. The questions which arise in the appeals are:(1) Whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation?(2) Whether Narayan (plaintiff No. 1, hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was entitled to restitution or other relief consequent upon a decision of the Privy Council in Bhimabai v. Gurunathgouda Khandappagouda (1932) L.R. 60 IndAp 25 hereinafter mentioned?The parties to the suit are Hindus governed by the Bombay School of the Mitakshara law. The table given below shows their relationship. Dyamangouda I (died before 1895) | __________________________|______________________________ | | | Nilkanthgouda Khandappagouda = (widow) Jivangouda = Bhimabai(died December 1915) (separated from his broth...
Tag this Judgment!Tungabai Vs. Yeshwant Dinkar Jog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1944
Reported in: (1945)47BOMLR242
Goddard, J.1. The question that arises in this appeal is whether a mortgage-deed executed by the appellant on May 17, 1926, whereby she mortgaged to Dinkar Krishna Jog, deceased (hereafter1 called the plaintiff), now represented by respondent No. 1, all her landlord property which had been left to her by way of 'stridhan' to secure a loan of Rs. 7,000 is binding upon her. The Subordinate Judge at Belgaum held that it was not, and his decision on this point was reversed by the High Court of Bombay.2. The plaintiff was a money-lender doing an extensive business and had made loans to the appellant's husband. The latter at the time of this mortgage was heavily in debt; he had mortgaged all his own property and, being pressed for money, had nothing to offer by way of security for a further loan other than his already encumbered estate. He approached the plaintiff for a further loan of Rs, 7,000, but the latter was unwilling to lend it either on the security of the husband's encumbered lands...
Tag this Judgment!Hubli Electricity Co. Ltd Vs. Government of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom370; (1945)47BOMLR415
Blagden, J.1. This is a petition by the Hubli Electricity Co., Ltd., against the Province of Bombay entitled 'In the matter of the High Court Suit No. 610 of 1944 (The Hubli Electricity Co., Ltd. v. The Province of Bombay), and in the matter of the order dated May 3, 1944, issued by the Secretary to Government by order of the Governor of Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939,-And In the matter of Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.'2. The petition is distinctly unusual, and the only question before me at the moment is whether this is a proper form of proceeding. The learned Advocate General on behalf of the Province of Bombay takes a preliminary objection that this is not the proper form of proceedings, and that is all I have to decide at the moment. I therefore assume, without deciding, that the statements contained in the petition are and that each of them is correct. But I desire to make it abundantly clear tha...
Tag this Judgment!Emperor Vs. Anant Narayan Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom413; (1945)47BOMLR138
Sen, J.1. This is a reference from the Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, with regard to a sessions case in his own Court to which the accused has been committed for an offence under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and he has recommended that the proceedings of the case be quashed and the accused acquitted. The material facts are these. The accused was an officiating Kulkarni in the village Kongnoli in Chikodi taluka in 1941. The Mamlatdar of Chikodi taluka arrived at the said village on June 17, 1941. Before his arrival one of his clerks had reached the village and had asked the Kulkarni, the accused, to bring his account books for inspection. The Kulkarni left but did not return. The Police Patil was then sent to find him but he also could not find the accused. The Patil then brought the account books from the Chavdi and the clerk, on inspecting them,, found that a large balance of land revenue which had been recovered had not been accounted for in the accounts. The Maml...
Tag this Judgment!Janardan Eknath Vs. Ganesh Sadashiv
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom200; (1945)47BOMLR27
Kania, Kt., Acting C.J.1. On the hearing of Second Appeal No. 549 of 1941 Mr. Justice Lokur and Mr. Justice Rajadhyaksha having found a conflict of authorities about the interpretation of Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, read with Section 72 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, 1879, referred the following question for the decision of a full bench:Having regard to Section 29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, is the plaintiff in a suit governed by Section 72 of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act for the purpose of limitation entitled to the benefit of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act?2. The short facts leading to this appeal are as follows. On March 6, 1929, the original three defendants passed a promissory note for Rs. 1,200 in favour of the plaintiff. On August 11, 1932, defendant No. 1 wrote a letter to the plaintiff which was contended to be an acknowledgment of the liability under the promissory note. Relying on that letter, the plaintiff filed the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »