Mumbai Court November 1945 Judgments
Bhagwant Balaji Rao Vs. Rajaram Sajnaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR817
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Ratnagiri reversing the order of the Subordinate Judge of Deorukh in Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 1939 and allowing the application of an assignee of a decree-holder to have the assignment recorded and for leave to execute the decree.2. One Murari obtained a decree in Suit No. 102 of 1935 against the opponents on March. 29, 1935, and he thereby obtained a declaration, that he was the owner of 2 1/3 pies share in the taxim out of dhada No. 48 in the village of Angavali and that he was also entitled to Rs. 150 for the unpaid purchase money and to Rs. 226-7-5 for half the costs of the suit. On November 1, 1938, he assigned his right under the decree for the recovery of Rs. 150 for the unpaid purchase money and for the costs to one Rajaram who filed the present Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 1939, 'In a subsequent suit, No. 317 of 1935, for partition to which Murari was a party no share was assigned...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagwant Balajirao and ors. Vs. Rajaram Sajnaji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Bom157
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Ratnagiri reversing the order of the Subordinate Judge of Deorukh in Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 1939 and allowing the application of an assignee of a decree-holder to have the assignment recorded and for leave to execute the decree.2. One Murari obtained a decree in Suit No. 102 of 1935 against the opponents on 29th March 1935, and he thereby obtained a declaration that he was the owner of 2 1/3 pies share in the taxim out of dhada No. 48 in the village of Angavali and that he was also entitled to Rs. 150 for the unpaid purchase money and to Rs. 226-7-5 for half the costs of the suit. On 1-11-1938, he assigned his right under the decree for the recovery of Rs. 150 for the unpaid purchase money and for the costs to one Rajaram who filed the present Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 1939. In a subsequent suit, No. 317 of 1935, for partition to which Murari was a party no share was assigned to Murar...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalal Shankarlal Vs. Baldeodas Chhaganlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR591
Macklin, J.1. This second appeal raises a question of the rules against restraints on alienation and against perpetuities in their applicability to contracts of pre-emption entered upon before the Transfer of Property Act was applied to the Presidency of Bombay. In 1889 one Keshavlal sold the tipper floor of his house to his son Madhavlal, the husband of defendant No. 3 in this case; and in 1891 he sold the ground-floor to his other son Shankarlal, who is the father of the plaintiff. The second of the deeds of sale contained a direction that in the event of Shankarlal desiring to sell the ground-floor, he should sell it to defendant No. 2's father Madhavlal and should not sell it to an outsider unless Madhavlal were unwilling to buy it at a price fixed in the deed; and Madhavlal was similarly restrained from selling the upper part of the house acquired under the purchase of 1889 to any one other than the plaintiff's father Shankarlal. Madhavlal signed the deed along with the vendor Kes...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Mulchand Vs. Bhagwan Gopal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR594
Chagla, J.1. The four plaintiffs in the suit from which this appeal arises are brothers and sons of defendant No. 2. They filed the suit for a declaration that the two mortgages dated June 16, 1922, and June 26, 1925, executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 were not binding on the plaintiffs' share in the property in suit. The plaintiffs' case was that the property was ancestral property and the alienation was not made for legal necessity. The trial Court held that plaintiffs Nos. 3 and 4 were born after the date of the alienation and, therefore, they could not challenge the alienation of their father. With regard to plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2, it held that the alienation was bad and gave a declaration that the alienation was not binding on the one-half share of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit property. There was an appeal to the learned Assistant Judge, and that appeal was dismissed. There were cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs urging that the plaintiffs' shar...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Motiram Mehta Vs. Natwarlal Gokaldas Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1945
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR81
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 2,000, future interest on it and costs of the suit out of the estate of deceased Bhulabhai Gokuldas, to whom various amounts had been advanced by him from time to time between December 13, 1936, and January 27, 1938, Defendants Nos. 1 and 2, who are Bhulabhai's brothers, contended that they were separate from him, that none of his property was in their possession and that the suit was time-barred. The suit was filed on November 18, 1940, and the only amount advanced within three years before suit was the last item of Rs. 25 paid to Bhulabhai on January 27, 1938. But the plaintiff alleged in his plaint that on November 19, 1937, Bhulabhai had endorsed an acknowledgment of his liability in his khata in the ledger, and that the bar of limitation was saved thereby under Section 19, of the Indian Limitation Act, That endorsement being unstamped, both the Courts below held it inadmissible in evidence, as it am...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Mulchand Vs. Bhagwan Gopal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Bom82
Chagla, J.1. The four plaintiffs in the suit from which this appeal arises are brothers and sons of defendant 2. They filed the suit for a declaration that the two mortgages dated 16-6-1922 and 26-6-1925, executed by defendant 2 in favour of defendant 1 were not binding on the plaintiffs' share in the property in suit. The plaintiffs' case was that the property was ancestral property and the alienation was not made for legal necessity. The trial Court held that plaintiffs 3 and 4 were born after the date of the alienation and, therefore, they could not challenge the alienation of their father. With regard to plaintiffs 1 and 2, it held that the alienation was bad and gave a declaration that the alienation was not binding on the one-half share of plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the suit property. There was an appeal to the learned Assistant Judge, and that appeal was dismissed. There were cross-objections filed by the plaintiffs urging that the plaintiffs' share was not one-half but two-thirds in...
Tag this Judgment!Manilal Motiram Mehta Vs. Natwarlal Gokaldas Shah and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Bom337
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover Rs. 2000, future interest on it and costs of the suit out of the estate of deceased Bhulabhai Gokuldas, to whom various amounts had been advanced by him from time to time between 13-12-1936 and 27-1-1938. Defendants 1 and 2, who are Bhulabhai's brothers, contended that they were separate from him, that none of his property was in their possession and that the suit was time-barred. The suit was filed on 18-11-1940, and the only amount advanced within three years before suit was the last item of Rs. 25 paid to Bhulabhai on 27-1-1938. But the plaintiff alleged in his plaint that on 19-11-1937, Bhulabhai had endorsed an acknowledgment of his liability in his khata in the ledger, and that the bar of limitation was saved thereby under Section 19, Limitation Act. That endorsement being unstamped, both the Courts below held it inadmissible in evidence, as it amounted to an acknowledgment which required a stamp of on...
Tag this Judgment!Khushal Chand Bhagchand Vs. Trimbak Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR586
Lokur, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovering possession of Survey No. 802/1 of Sangamner together with mesne profits and costs. The land belonged to one Chintaman Vinayak and he made a gift of it to the plaintiff's father Ramchandra by a registered deed dated August 17, 1927. The deed, while giving the land to Ramchandra, provided that the donor Chintaman was to remain in possession and to enjoy the income of the land during his lifetime and that the donee Ramchandra should take possession of it after his death. Ramchandra is dead. Plaintiff No. 1 is his son, plaintiff No. 2 is his father and plaintiff No, 3 is his brother, and on Chintaman'ts death on January 28, 1937, they have become entitled to the land in suit. But soon after passing the deed of gift in favour of Ramchandra, (Chintaman appears to have changed his mind and executed another registered deed on May 18, 1928, revoking the gift. Thereafter he sold it to defendant No. 1, Laxmibai, on September 24, 1...
Tag this Judgment!Motilal Sarupchand Vs. Shamsundar Radhakisan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1945
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR783
Chagla, J.1. The plaintiff lent and advanced a certain sum of money to the father of the defendant and the father passed a promissory note in respect of this amount. The father died and his widow, after making up the accounts, passed a promissory note for the amount lent by the plaintiff to her husband. As she could not pay the amount of the promissory note, the plaintiff filed a suit against her. She died during the pendency of the suit and the plaintiff brought the defendant on record as her heir and legal representative. A decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant as the legal representative of her mother and to the extent of the assets of her mother come to her hands. The plaintiff had attached before judgment a property of the defendant's father of which the widow was in possession. The attachment was confirmed when the decree was passed and the plaintiff attempted to bring the property to sale. In the execution proceedings the defendant urged that the pro...
Tag this Judgment!Khushalchand Bhagchand Vs. Trimbak Ramchandra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1945
Reported in: AIR1947Bom49
Lokur, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovering possession of Survey No. 802-1 of Sangamner together with mesne profits and costs. The, land belonged to one Chintaman Vinayak and he made a gift of it to the plaintiff's father Ramchandra by a registered deed dated 17-8-1927. The deed, while giving the land to Ramchandra, provided that the donor Chintaman was to remain in possession and to enjoy the income of the land during his lifetime and that the donee Ramchandra should take possession of it after his death. Ramchandra is dead. Plaintiff 1 is his son, plaintiff 2 is his father and plaintiff 3 is his brother, and on Chintaman's death on 28-1-1937, they have become entitled to the land in suit. But soon after passing the deed of gift in favour of Ramchandra, Chintaman appears to have changed his mind and executed another registered deed on 18-5-1923 revoking the gift. Thereafter he sold it to defendant l, Laxmibai, on 21-9.1932. Defendant l mortgaged it to defendant ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »