Mumbai Court July 1944 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.
Pandurang Bhau Balvadkar Vs. Changunabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom164; (1944)46BOMLR913
Chagla, J.1. This second appeal raises a very short and interesting question relating to the Hindu law of adoption. One Bhau Balvadkar died in 1932 leaving his widow Manjulabai and two sons Kushaba and Lahu. Bhau and his two sons constituted a joint Hindu family. Kushaba was married to Changunabai who is the defendant in the suit, Kushaba died on November 13, 1933, and Lahu died two days thereafter. On the death of Lahu, the joint family came to an end with the death of the last co-pafcener and Manjulabai inherited the property as the heir of Lahu. Manjulabai adopted the plaintiff on December 14, 1934, and the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that he was the lawfully adopted son of Bhau Balvadkar and for an injunction restraining the defendant Changunabai from interfering with the possession of Bhau's property.2. The question that is raised in this second appeal is whether the adoption of the plaintiff by Manjulabai was a good and valid adoption. It is contended that as on th...
Ramchandra Balaji Vs. Shankar Apparao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom229; (1945)47BOMLR121
Lokur, J.1. This Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of N.J. Wadia J. raises an important question of Hindu law which was regarded in this Province as settled by the full bench ruling in Balu Sakharam v. Lahoo Sambhaji [1937] Bom. 508 : [1937] 39 Bom. L.R. 382 and a series of other rulings which followed it.2. The facts are simple and undisputed. One Ramchandra Devji died in 1900 possessed of the lands in suit and the right to kulkarniki watan service in four villages. He left behind him two sons Apparao alias Gururao and Balaji. Before Apparao's name was entered in the Kulkarniki Pali Register after his father's death, he died issueless in 1904 leaving behind him his widow Bhagubai defendant No. 4. The name of Apparao's brother Balaji was then entered in the Pali Register for the kulkarniki service. Balaji adopted Ramehandra defendant No. 1 in 1919 and in 1920 he passed in his favour a deed of relinquishment in respect of both his immoveable property and the kulkarniki watan ri...
Harshadlal Ambalal Desai Vs. Bai Ichha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom496; (1945)47BOMLR360
Chagla, J.1. This is a revisional application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. the plaintiff sued to: recover her share of the desaigiri money received by the defendant for the years 1938-39, 1939-40, 1940-41 and 1941-42, The learned Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 40, costs of the suit and interest.2. Two points have been raised on this application. Both go to the question of the maintainability of the suit. The first point is that the suit is not maintainable under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Pensions Act, 1871. It is contended that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is barred in all suits relating to any pension or grant of money or land revenue conferred or made by the British or any former Government, and a civil Court can only entertain a suit of this nature provided a certificate is obtained from the Collector under Section 6. Now it has got to be remembered that in this case there is no dispute as to the right of the plai...
Navnitlal Chunilal Vs. Baburao (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1944
Reported in: AIR1945Bom137; (1944)46BOMLR787
Harilal Kania, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is an ejectment suit. It originally came for hearing before Blagden J. Having regard to the Bombay Rent Restriction Order, 1942, issued under the Defence of India Rules, 1939, the landlord was bound to obtain a certificate from the Controller, to show that he required the premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use. After obtaining such certificate a notice to quit was given by the plaintiffs. Certain payments were made thereafter. Dispute arose as to whether the same were accepted by the landlord as rent or compensation. The present suit was filed for ejectment and the defences were principally two : (1) that the certificate obtained from the Controller was invalid ; and (2) that the notice to quit was waived. Blagden J. held against the appellant, the tenant, on both the points. When the matter reached hearing on appeal, the second question about the waiver of notice to quit was fully argued. In the interval, a full bench of this Court on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›