Mumbai Court March 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.
Kanhayalal Supdubhai Vs. Hiralal Deoram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom255; (1946)48BOMLR795
Lokur, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the Assistant Judge of West Khandesh remanding a suit for disposal on merits. It was a suit for an account of certain deposits said to have been made in the defendant's shop by one Deoram, Deoram died in January 1938, and this suit was filed by his two sons and his widow. Soon after Deoram's death the plaintiffs filed Suit No. 86 of 1939 in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Dhulia. It was an omnibus suit against sixteen defendants, asking for various reliefs. The present defendant was defendant No. 6 in that suit and the relief asked against him was an account of the deposits said to have been made in Ms shop by deceased Deoram-the very relief asked for in the present suit. As such u suit was bad for multifariousness, the plaintiffs were called upon to elect, and they gave a purshis confining it to their claim against defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 13. As the suit was not proceeded with against defendant No. 6, the present...
Birpal Singh Vs. King Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR493
Patrick Spens, Kt., C.J.1. Prior to September 8, 1940, the appellant in this case, Birpal Singh, had been for some time the Rana of the State of Bhajji, one of the Simla Hill States, and duly recognised as the ruler thereof. On September 8, 1940, he was brought to Simla and was lodged in the Ripon Hospital there. On September 9, 1940, a warrant addressed to the Deputy Commissioner, Simla, was issued under the provisions of the Bengal State Prisoners Regulation, 1818, in the following terms:-Whereas the Governor General in Council for good and sufficient reasons, being reasons connected with the discharge of the functions of the Crown in its relations with Indian States, has seen fit to determine that Birpal Singh, ex-Rana of Bhajji, shall be placed under personal restraint at Simla, you are hereby required and commanded in pursuance of that determination to receive the person above named into your custody and to deal with him in accordance with the orders of the Government and provisio...
Rani Provabati Saheba Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-25-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR460
Macmillan, J.1. This appeal comes before their Lordships from the Calcutta High Court in a suit in which the respondent, the Secretary of State for India in Council, is the plaintiff. He claims a decree in his favour declaring his title to seven jalkars or fisheries which in his plaint he describes as 'component parts' of his fishery known as Jalkar Gangapath Islampur (southern portion). His claim was originally to nine jalkars but has been restricted to seven.2. It is not disputed that the respondent as in right of the southern portion of Jalkar Gangapath Islampur is entitled to the fishings in some fifty miles of the river Ganges, which is a public navigable river. Nor is it disputed that he is entitled to all subsidiary fishings which the law recognises as ' adjuncts ' of his fishery in the Ganges. But it is denied by the appellants, who are certain of the original defendants in the suit, that the respondent has any right to the seven jalkars now claimed by him whether as ' adjuncts...
Bai Ganga Vs. Baheramshah Dalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom300; (1947)49BOMLR90
Sen, J.1. This suit was filed by the respondent for possession of the suit site which he alleged belonged to him and which according to him had been taken possession of by the defendant about October 1939, that is, about nine months prior to the date of the suit. The defendant denied the plaintiff's ownership and pleaded that she had become the owner by adverse possession. The trial Court found the alleged ownership of the plaintiff not proved and held that the defendant had proved her adverse possession for over twelve years. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, and the learned First Class Subordinate Judge with appellate powers who heard the appeal held that the plaintiff's title was proved and he further held that the defendant had not acquired title by adverse possession. Accordingly, he made a decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession, damages and mesne profits.2. It seems to me that the lower appellate Court ought to have raised...
Dnynoba Gangaram Vs. Dattoba Balappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom152; (1946)48BOMLR629
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to enforce a mortgage bond passed by the defendant in favour of one Eknath for Rs. 3,000, dated May 25, 1923. The plaintiff got the mortgage-deed assigned to himself by Eknath on December 22, 1936, and filed this suit on June 11, 1940. Out of Rs, 6,000 due under the mortgage-deed he remitted Rs. 4,800 and claimed only Rs. 1,200. But the defendant contended that the transaction was sham and that the amount which he had received was returned to Eknath and a receipt was taken from him on June 2, 1923. He also contended that the suit was time-barred as the mortgagee was never put into possession of the mortgaged property. According to the terms of the mortgage-deed, the mortgagee was to take possession of the mortgaged property and to restore its possession to the mortgagor when the money was repaid within five years. The trial Court held that the receipt said to have been passed by Eknath was fabricated and that in fact the mortgage was not sat...
Maruti Aba Bongane Vs. Akaram Pandu More
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-20-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom400; (1947)49BOMLR294
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of survey No. 758/1 of Uran measuring 10 acres and 8 gunthas and a house in that village which belonged to defendant No. l's father-in-law Masu. Masu died in 1907 leaving behind him his widow Bhagu and his son-in-law defendant No. 1 whose wife Mamata had already died in 1903. On Masu's death his property devolved upon his adopted son Appa. Appa died shortly afterwards and the property went to his mother Bhagu. Bhagu made a gift of 9 acres and 1 guntha out of survey No. 758/1 and the house in favour of her son-in-law defendant No. 1 in 1909. But she disclaimed that gift by a notice served on defendant No. 1 in .1916. She died on May 3, 1939, and disputes arose regarding the heirship to her land and house. Defendant No. 1 claimed them under the deed of gift executed by her. The plaintiff Aba, who is the son of Masu's cousin Kushaba, claimed the property as the nearest reversionary heir. Defendants Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are Aba's nephe...
Rayappa Ningappa Vs. Virupaxappa Chanbasayya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-14-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom164; (1946)48BOMLR814
Lokur, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff under Order XXI, Rule 63, of the Civil Procedure Code, for a declaration that the property described in the plaint was liable to attachment and sale in execution of the decree in Suit No. 520 of 1925. One Ambanna Balappa obtained a money decree against one Revanayya in Suit No. 520 of 1925 of the Hubli Court. The plaintiff got that decree assigned to himself by Ambanna, and in execution of that decree he sought to recover the decretal amount by attachment and sale of the property described in the plaint. Defendant No. 1 obstructed the attachment and sale on the ground that he was the owner of the property as he had purchased it from one Rudrayya who had purchased it at an auction held in darkhast No. 400 of 1936. That darkhast was given by the Dharwar Bank in execution of a decree which it had obtained against Revanayya in Suit No. 88 of 1933. When that darkhast was pending, Revanayya died and his divided brother Virup...
Shankarlal Narayandas Vs. the New Mofussil Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1946
Reported in: (1946)48BOMLR456
Du Parcq, J.1. In the suit which has given rise to this appeal, the plaintiff (now the appellant) claimed against the defendant company specific performance of an oral agreement made by the company through its liquidator, Sir Shapurji Bomanji Billimoria, for the sale to the plaintiff of a pressing and ginning factory at Dhulia. He claimed the like relief against the remaining defendants, in accordance with Section 27 of the Specific Relief Act, as persons claiming under the defendant company by a title arising subsequently to the contract.2. It may be said at once that if the plaintiff is entitled to the relief which he claims against the defendant company, no question arises as to the liability of the other defendants. It is common ground that a contract for the; sale to them of the factory was entered into after the date of the contract alleged by the plaintiff, and they made no attempt at the trial to prove that they had paid the purchase money in good faith and without notice of th...
In Re: Sunderji Laljee Khakhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom30; (1946)48BOMLR498
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is a reference under Section 5 of the Court-fees Act, a controversy having arisen with regard to the amount of fees which must be paid in taking out a succession certificate. The contention of the petitioner is that on a proper reading of Articles 11 and 12 of the Court-fees Act, 1870, as superseded by the Bombay Finance Act (II of 1932), the fee is to be charged on the amount or value of every security mentioned separately in the three schedules to the petition and not on the aggregate amount or value of the securities and therefore as the value of each share certificate separately mentioned in the schedules is less than Rs. 1,000 the petitioner is not liable to pay any fee at all. The question actually referred by the Assistant Prothonotary is:Whether the petitioner is liable to pay probate Court-fees on the succession certificate on the aggregate value of the shares mentioned in the three schedules annexed to the petition ?2. Now before approaching Ar...
Raghusing Bhavansing Vs. Ogeppa Ramappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom71; (1946)48BOMLR615
Lokur, J.1. This is an application under Section 37 of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Belief Act, 1939, requesting that second appeal No. 1149 of 1945 should be sent to the Debt Adjustment Board at Bijapur for disposal. The suit out of which that appeal has arisen was filed by the plaintiff for an account of a mortgage evidenced by a sale deed of 1933. He claimed that the sale deed was intended to create only a mortgage. The trial Court held that the transaction was an absolute sale and dismissed the suit. The appeal against that decree was summarily dismissed by the District Judge on July 31, 1945. The Bombay Agricultural Debtors' Belief Act, 1939, was extended to Bijapur on May 1, 1945, when the appeal was still pending before the District Judge. But the last date for making an application to the Debt Adjustment Beard under Section 17 was fixed as October 81, 1945. It is alleged that an application in respect of the alleged mortgage in suit was made to the Board before that date. S...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »