Mumbai Court December 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.
Manibhai Hathibhai Patel Vs. C.W.E. Arbuthnot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom413; (1947)49BOMLR454
Bhagwati, J.1. The petitioners are the owners of an immoveable property known as 'Bhadran Bhuvan' situate at Tardeo Junction, which they purchased on May 10, 1.940. The immoveable property consists inter alia of several shops, shops Nos. 10 to 14 whereof are the subject-matter of these proceedings. It is not stated in the petition what was the position of these shops after May 10, 1940, up to the time that the same came to be occupied by the respective parties, the only averments in the petition in this behalf which were considered relevant by the draftsman of the petition being that shop No. 10 was let out to one Sakhavat Hussein on or about June 1, 1943, at a rental of Rs, 80 per month, that the front portion of shop No. 11 was given to one Tukaram Tavde for occupation by leave and license of the petitioners on or about June 1, 1943, Tukaram Tavde paying a compensation for such use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 35 per month, that shop No. 12 was let out to one Ramchandra & Co. on...
Dagadabai Fakirmahomed Vs. Sakharam Gavaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR767
Macklin, J.1. The plaintiff claiming to be the heir of her husband, who died in 1923 sued to eject the defendants from the property in suit. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 claimed to be the true heirs of the plaintiff's husband, and they denied the plaintiff's rights altogether. They also set up title by adverse possession.2. On the merits the plaintiff's claim to heirship of her husband has been recognised in all the Courts; but the lower appellate Court has ordered that her suit should be dismissed on the grounds of the adverse possession of the defendants, and that contention was upheld on second appeal. The plaintiff now comes in appeal under the Letters Patent.3. It is to be noted that the plaintiff had mortgaged the land, and the mortgagee brought a suit in 1929 against the plaintiff and also against defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who were in possession of the property. He obtained a decree on his mortgage; and it was therein provided that he should have possession for two years and that poss...
Parkash Kaur Vs. Udham Kaur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR264
Zafrulla Khan, J.1. One Harnam Singh, who was in possession of a certain area of agricultural land in the Punjab, as a mortgagee, died leaving him surviving a widow and a pre-deceased son's widow. After his death the mortgage was redeemed, the entire amount of the mortgage money being paid to the widow. The pre-deceased son's widow thereafter instituted a suit to recover one half share of the mortgage money from the widow, or in the alternative from the legal representatives of the mortgagor, basing her claim on Section 3 of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937. On a reference to this Court in In re The Hindu Women's Bights to Property Act ` the Court delivered the opinion that the Act did not operate to regulate succession to agricultural land in the Governors' Provinces. The question that arose for decision in this case was whether the mortgagee rights held by Harnam Singh were or were not agricultural land. A division bench of the Lahore High Court, before whom the case ev...
Shantaram Sadashiv Vs. Mahableshwar Vinayak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR764
Macklin, J.1. In these two appeals the question at issue is the validity of the adoption in each case; and the answer to the question depends upon whether or no the parties to the suits are governed by the Bombay school of Hindu law or by the Madras school. The cases come from the North Kanara District, which up to the year 1861 used to form part of the Madras Presidency but was then transferred to the Bombay Presidency for administrative purposes; and it has been held by the Privy Council in Somasekhara Royal v. Sugutur Mahadeva Royal (1935) 38 Bom. L.R. 317 that the Hindu law prevailing in the District of North Kanara is the Madras school of Hindu law. When these matters first came on appeal to the High Court, the High Court was not satisfied that the parties might not have brought their own personal law to the District of North Kanara, since it had been suggested that these were migrants to the District from Goa, and a presumption arises that migrants bring their own law with them u...
In Re: Navnitlal Hiralal Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom362; (1947)49BOMLR386
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application by Navnitlal Hiralal Gandhi to this Court to exercise its power of habeas corpus under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On December 2 last, we made an order, that the detenue, who is detained in the Central Prison, Ahmedabad, should be produced in this Court today, and he having been so produced, we have proceeded to examine his contention that he is illegally detained.2. The only ground urged for the validity of his detention is to be found in Section 46B of the Bombay District Police Act, 1890, which is a new section added to the old Act, by Bombay Act No. XVI of 1946, 'The Bombay District Police (Amendment) Act, 1946.' It is necessary to examine the scope and meaning of this new section. It provides that the Provincial Government may, if satisfied that the public peace or tranquillity in a district or any part thereof is disturbed, or is likely to be dsturbed, in consequence of a conflict between different communities o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›