Mumbai Court July 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.
Ramdhandas Jhajharia Vs. Ramkisondas Dalmia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR244
Simonds, J.1. In this appeal, which is brought from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its Appellate Jurisdiction dated October 8, 1942, reversing two judgments and a decree of that Court in its Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction, their Lordships are confronted with an unfortunate difference of opinion upon what appears to be a pure question of fact. The Appeal Court (Beaumont C.J. and Chagla J.) reluctantly and with a full appreciation of the weight to be attached to the decision of the trial Judge (Kania J.), who had seen and heard the witnesses, felt constrained to take a different view of the facts from that which he had taken, and their Lordships are clearly of opinion that they were right in doing so.2. The substantial question can be shortly stated.3. The joint Hindu family, of which the appellant is the karta, carried on certain family business, including an agency firm in the name of Jhajharia Dhandhania and Company, which had until February, 1939, act...
Bibhabati Devi Vs. Ramendra Narayan Roy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR246
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, dated November 25, 1940, dismissing an appeal against a decree of the First Additional District Judge, Dacca, dated August 24, 1936.2. The present suit was instituted in the Court of the First Subordinate Judge at Dacca on July 24, 1930, by the respondent Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) against the present appellant and others. In the plaint, as subsequently amended on April 15, 1931, the plaintiff sought (ka 1) a declaration that he is Kumar Ramendra Narayan Roy, the second son of the late Rajah Rajendra Narayan Roy of Bhowal and (ka 1), that his possession should be confirmed in respect of the one-third share of the properties described in the schedule, or, if from the evidence and under the circumstances plaintiff's possession thereof should not be established, then possession thereof should be given to him. He further ask...
Chhaterpati Pratap Bahadur Vs. Lachmidhar Prasad Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR130
M.R. Jayakar, J.1. These are two consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated May 9, 1939, confirming a judgment and two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Gaya, dated June 5, 1934.2. The family with which this litigation is concerned is governed by the Benares school of the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. It consists of two branches which have been settled for many years at Rusi and Kaira respectively. The annexed pedigree of the family is taken from one which was proved to the satisfaction of the trial Court and was undisputed in the High Court.3. The only question in these appeals is whether Sarabjit (a near cognate or bandhu) or Sia Prasad Singh (a more remote agnate or gotraja) was entitled to the property left by Ram Dulari Koer. Both Courts in India have held that Sia Prasad Singh was so entitled.4. The facts, out of which these appeals arise, briefly stated, are as follows :-Jagatpati and Kailashpati were joint. They had ...
Munnalal and Raghunathsingh Vs. Kashibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR231
John Beaumont, J.1. This is a consolidated appeal by special leave from two judgments and two decrees dated December 16, 1937, and December 22, 1937, respectively of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur, which reversed two judgments and two decrees dated June 21, 1934, and June 15, 1934, respective of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, First Class, Khandwa.2. The two appeals which are consolidated arise out of two suits in ejectment. The suit to which the first appeal relates was brought by the appellants, or their predecessors in title, claiming possession of a house and certain land in a town and the house thereon. In the suit to which the second appeal relates the appellant claimed possession of three muafi fields. The Subordinate Judge decreed both suits, but, on appeal, the High Court dismissed them.3. The title of the plaintiffs in both suits is traced from one, Balwant Singh, who died in the year 1907. The respondents claim through one, Bahadur Singh, the younger brother of t...
Syed Asrar Ahmed Vs. the Durgah Committee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR235
Simonds, J.1. This appeal concerns a question of great importance to sections of the Muslim community in India and has been anxiously considered by their Lordships.2. In the year 1941 the appellant, Syed Asrar Ahmed, instituted a suit in the Court of the District Judge, Ajmer-Merwara, against the respondents, the Durgah Committee Ajmer, whose status will be explained, claiming a declaration that the office of Mutawalli of the Durgah Khawaja Sahib Ajmer was hereditary in his family and that the respondents were not competent to question his status as a hereditary Mutawalli in succession to the last holder of that office. The District Judge on July 31, 1942, made a decree in his favour, but upon appeal-to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer-Merwara, this decree was on February 23, 1944, reversed. Hence this appeal.3. The background of historical fact can be conveniently taken from the careful judgment of the Judicial Commissioner. From this it appears that the Durgah Khawaja Sa...
Emperor Vs. Amrit Banaspati Co., Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-25-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom306; (1947)49BOMLR47
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Presidency Magistrate, Second Additional Court, Mazagaon, delivered on February 27, 1946, whereby he convicted both the appellants of an offence under one of the notifications with regard to supplies made under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, and he imposed a fine on appellant No. 1, which is a company, of Rs. 10,000 and on appellant No. 2, who is the branch manager of the company in Bombay, of Rs. 1,000 and in default two months' simple imprisonment.2. The question involved is an extremely short one, though it is by no means free from difficulty. The notification which it is alleged has been infringed is dated May 21, 1943, and it bears the No. 48-IV, and it is in these terms:In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (2) of Rule 81 of the Defence of India Rules, the Government of Bombay is pleased to direct that no person holding on his own account, or on account of, or in partnership wit...
Dan Kuer Vs. Sarla Devi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR123
M.R. Jayakar, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated March 12, 1942, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Etah dated July 31, 1935.2. The main questions to be determined in this appeal are:-(1) Whether a registered partition award dated January 8, 1921, created a valid charge in favour of the respondent, Sarla Devi, on the property (the two villages of Quazipur and Mai) allotted to her husband Nidhan Singh; and(2) whether Drigpal Singh, the predecessor in title of the appellant, Dan. Koer, had notice (actual or constructive) of the said award and charge, when he took a usufructuary mortgage of the said two villages on the following day, January 9, 1921, wherein a reference was made to the said award.3. The pedigree of the family, so far as it is material to the case, is as follows.4. The family was subject to the Mitakshara law of the Benares school. It had considerable pro...
Emperor Vs. Mahomed Kasim Gulam Mohideen
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1946
Reported in: AIR1947Bom388; (1947)49BOMLR148
Leonard Stone, Kt., C.J.1. This matter comes before us in revision from an order passed by the learned First Class Magistrate at Khed in the Ratnagiri District on January 4, 1946, by which on a charge of breach of the District Magistrate's order No. WS/R1758 of November 12, 1945, punishable under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules, 1939, the learned Magistrate fined the accused Us. 100, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and ordered the confiscation of certain grains of the value of Rs. 1,351.2. The District Magistrate's order mentioned in the charge is in respect of the declaration of stocks of grain held by any person and the alleged offence was a breach of that order. The accused on being convicted went in appeal to the learned Sessions Judge at Ratnagiri, and he rightly came to the conclusion that no appeal lay to him by virtue of Section 412 of the Criminal Procedure Code, because the accused had pleaded guilty. The powers of this Court are of cou...
Bansilal Lalchand Firodia Vs. Bhikubai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR545
Gajendragadkar, J.1. This appeal arises from a suit filed by the two sons and the wife of Zumburlal in which it was alleged that Zumburlal had passed a sale-deed in favour of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 purporting to transfer the property belonging to the undivided family of the plaintiffs and Zumburlal and that the said sale-deed was not justified by any legal necessity nor was it passed for any purpose binding upon the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed a declaration that the said sale-deed was not binding upon the plaintiffs in any way, and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 have not obtained any right, title or interest thereby, and that they have no right to ask for the possession of the properties conveyed under it. As a consequence of the said declaration a permanent injunction was claimed restraining defendants Nos. 1 and 2 from taking possession of the property sold to them under the said document. For the purpose of court-fees the plaintiffs had valued their claim at Rs. 20...
Kumar Singh Chhajor Vs. Emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1946
Reported in: (1947)49BOMLR227
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal, made on August 24, 1943. By its order the High Court directed that the convictions and sentences passed on the appellants by Mr. S. Chaudhury, acting as a special magistrate under the Special Criminal Courts Ordinance, 1942, be set aside, and that the appellants be retried in the district of Hooghly.2. The facts leading up to the appeal can be stated shortly. In January, 1943, the accused were tried on a charge of dacoity under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code by Mr. Chaudhury acting as such special magistrate as aforesaid. On January 19, 1943, they were acquitted on the charge under Section 395, but were convicted under Section 403 of the offence of misappropriation and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each. Subsequently, the High Court at Calcutta, of its own motion, called for the record of the case, and on August 24, 1943, a bench consisting of the Ch...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »