Mumbai Court November 1946 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.
Hanmappa Udandappa Pujari Vs. Hanmantgauda Pujari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR871
Macklin, J.1. The question for consideration in these second appeals is whether the right to a turn of worship in the temple of Shri Maruti Dev of Tulsigiri can be transferred. The temple is endowed, and for that purpose a sanad was issued by Government to the temple in the name of its vahivatdar. The parties to this litigation are admittedly members of vahivatdar family. In accordance with a custom which is common in such cases the members of the family divided up their turns by a fixed arrangement, and under that arrangement one Ramangouda assumed an obligation to worship with a corresponding right to receive the offerings made by the worshippers for six months in every ten years. One Hanmappa, also a member of the family, had a right of worship amounting to one-fifth of the whole, and to him Ramangouda transferred his one-twentieth share in the obligation of worship and the right to receive the offerings. It may be presumed that the purchase price was based upon the estimated value ...
Hanmantrao Annarao Vs. Dhruvaraj Pandurangrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR867
Gajendragadkar, J.1. These appeals arise in execution proceedings and raise a short question as to the denotation of the word 'agriculturist' used in Clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The decree under execution was passed in Civil Suit No. 685 of 1936 and the darkhasts giving rise to these appeals had been filed by the decree-holder to recover the amount of costs by attachment and sale of the house of the judgment-debtor. This claim was resisted by the judgment-debtor on the ground that the house sought to be attached was exempt from attachment under Clause (c) of the proviso to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure. After raising this plea in the written statement the judgment-debtor took no further steps to substantiate his plea by leading any evidence. In fact, on the next date of hearing he remained absent. Thereupon the learned Judge proceeded to make an order directing the attachment and sale of the house as prayed fo...
Awappa Tatoba Chaugule Vs. Datto Krishna Adke
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR864
Macklin, J.1. A mortgagee obtained a decree against his mortgagor under Section 15B of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. Rather less than three years thereafter he applied to have the decree made final, and rather more than three years after the existing decree had been passed he applied for execution of the decree. His application for making the decree final had been rejected on the ground that it was unnecessary, the existing decree being one under Section 15-B of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act and therefore partaking of the nature of a final decree. The result was that the judgment-debtor objected to execution on the ground that the execution was out of time and was not saved by the decree-holder's application to have the decree made final, that not being an application to take a step in aid of execution made in accordance with law to the proper Court within the meaning of Article 182(5) of the Indian Limitation Act. His contention was rejected by the executing Court a...
Nawroji Vikaji Vakharia Vs. Chunilal B. Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-26-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom436; (1947)49BOMLR447
Bhagwati, J.1. A preliminary point has been urged in this notice of motion by Mr. Munshi for the defendants that the notice of motion is not in form No. 7 annexed to the High Court Rules and that it should, therefore, be dismissed. The plaintiff took out this notice of motion on October 31, 1946, and obtained from my brother Blagden. leave under High Court Rule 350 to serve notice of motion in terms of the draft produced, returnable on November 8, 1946. An interim injunction in terms of prayer (a) with certain modifications was granted on the same day, and liberty was given to the defendants or any of them to bring on the notice of motion earlier before November 8, 1946, on 48 hours' notice in writing to the plaintiff's attorneys. It appears that the draft of the notice of motion, which was submitted to my brother Blagden that day and which after due engrossment appears to have been served on the defendants, did not make any mention of the fact that leave under Rule 350 had been grante...
Emperor Vs. Mahomed Dawood
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR603
Stone, C.J.1. The appellants, who were accused Nos. 1 and 7 in the Court below, were convicted respectively under Sub-section 4 (a) and Section 5 and under Sub-section 4 (b) and Section 5 of the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act and sentenced to undergo two months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500, in default to suffer a further one month's rigorous imprisonment by Mr. S.A. Hatteea, Presidency Magistrate, Ninth Court, Bandra.2. Tried with the appellants were 15 other persons, who were charged under Section 5 only, and were convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each. They have not appealed.3. It is now common ground that on the afternoon of April 21, 1945, which was Easter Sunday, all the accused were playing cards for money in a flat at 111, Chapel Road, Bandra, the tenancy of which is in the name of the wife of the appellant who is accused No. 7, and that Inspector Solomon of the Bandra Police Station, who is an officer specially authorised by order of the...
Emperor Vs. Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1946
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR378
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for bail made on behalf of a convict, Mr. Morarka, who is undergoing a sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment in Arthur Road Prison. He is in fact in the hospital ward of the jail. A telegram has just been received by the Registrar on the Appellate Side of the High Court from the Registrar of the Privy Council informing this Court that the Privy Council have granted the appellant special leave to appeal.2. Formerly, there was no power in such cases for any Court to grant bail, but on February 20 of this year that circumstance having been pointed out in a then recent case by the Privy Council, the law was changed and a new sub-section was added to Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By that sub-section it is provided that where a High Court is satisfied that a convicted person has been granted special leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the sentence which has been imposed, the Court m...
Bai Sakri Vs. Bai Dhani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR762
Macklin, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent against a decision of Mr. Justice Weston holding that a receiver should be appointed pending the decision of an application for leave to sue as a pauper. Two points are taken by the appellant, who objects to the appointment of a receiver. The first is that a receiver can be appointed only when a plaint is before the Court, and the filing of a pauper application accompanied by a plaint is not the same thing as filing a suit. The second point is that, assuming it is not necessary for a suit to be before the Court, there must at any rate be some proceeding before the Court; and what is before the Court is not such a proceeding as is contemplated by Order XL, Rule 1.2. As to the first contention, it is to be noted that the present form of Order XL, Rule 1, differs from the older Section 503 in that the words 'Where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient' have been substituted for the words 'Where it appears to the Court to...
Narmadabai Narayanshet Shet Vs. Hidayatalli Saheballi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1946
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR696
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal has been preferred by the surety against the order passed by the learned District Judge holding that the darkhast filed against the surety is in time and directing the Court of first instance to proceed with the said darkhast and to dispose of it on the merits in accordance with law.2. In civil suit No. 475 of 1936 a decree was passed directing defendants Nos. 2 and 3 to pay the plaintiff Rs. 307-8-6 and proportionate costs. Pending the suit certain moveables belonging to defendant No. 3 were attached at the instance of the plaintiff. Thereupon the said defendant applied to raise the attachment (Miscellaneous Application No. 80 of 1936), and the application was allowed on the defendant furnishing security in that behalf. The present appellant stood surety for the said defendant to the extent of Rs. 400. As a result the moveables of defendant No. 3 which had been attached were returned to him. On the date of the hearing of the suit all the defendants rem...
Kasa Krishna Ghorpade Vs. Vinayak Gangadhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR858
Dixit, J.1. These two appeals arise out of two suits filed in each instance by one Krishna Ganu to recover from different defendants possession of certain property. The defendants are purchasers from one Bhau Govinda.2. The property involved in each suit originally belonged to one Nana Bala who died on January 20, 1929, without leaving any issue. It appears that Government took possession of Nana's property in the belief that Nana had no heir to succeed to his estate. Thereafter by miscellaneous application (No. 16 of 1933) Bhau Govinda obtained on July 15, 1933, a succession certificate to the property of Nana and on the strength of the certificate he obtained possession of Nana's property. On August 30, 1933, Bhau Govinda sold to Vinayak Gangadhar Phadnis (defendant in suit No. 163 of 1940) the property involved in the suit, viz. Survey Nos. 16-1, 17-1, 18-2 and 19-1 + 2 for Rs. 2,500. On the same day Bhau Govinda sold to Raghunath Narayan Jadhav (defendant in suit No. 168 of 1940) t...
Kasiviswanathan Chettiar Vs. Somasundaram Chettiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR262
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated December 10, 1942, which affirmed with a slight modification the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sivaganga dated November 21, 1940, in O.S. II of 1939.2. The appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff (the first respondent) for partition and recovery of a half share of the properties in the possession of the first defendant, the appellant before the Board, now dead, who is represented by Lakshmi Achi. The first defendant was the contesting defendant and will be referred to hereafter as 'the defendant'.3. The plaintiff claimed the properties as the duly adopted son of the elder brother of the defendant. At the time of the adoption the adoptive parents of the plaintiff, that is, the elder brother of the defendant and his wife, were dead, and the adoption was brought about by the adoptive grandfather. It appears that it was done with the consent of the defendant also. Under ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »