Mumbai Court July 1947 Judgments
KurbanhusseIn Mahomedali Kharodawala Vs. Husseinbhai Mithabhai Dhabu A ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR604
Gajendragadkar, J.1. The suit giving rise to the present appeal had been filed by the plaintiff to recover possession of four items of immoveable property on the ground that he was entitled to them by virtue of an award made on March 2, 1925. The plaintiff's case was that he, the defendant, and two others were carrying on business in partnership at Dohad, and that the said partnership owned some properties. While the partnership was being carried on, disputes arose between the partners which the partners referred to five persons as arbitrators of their choice and confidence. The arbitrators examined the documents consisting mainly of the account books of the partnership and made their award on March 2, 1925. Under this award the plaintiff was given the properties in respect of which the present suit has been filed. After the award was made by the arbitrators, the plaintiff filed an application under paragraph 20 of schedule II of the Civil Procedure Code in the Court of the First Class...
Tag this Judgment!Shantaram Abasaheb Powar Vs. Keru Krishna Koli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1947
Reported in: AIR1948Bom381; (1948)50BOMLR283
Sen, J.1. These are Letters Patent appeals against the decision of Mr. Justice Chagla summarily dismissing two second appeals Nos. 108 and 109 of 1944. Those appeals arose respectively out of civil suits Nos. 58 and 59 of 1938 in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge, Vita. The question that arises in these appeals is whether the principle of Hindu law enunciated in Rama Nana v. Dhondi Murari 25 Bom. L.R. 361 that a valid surrender made by a Hindu widow of her husband's estate to the next reversioner cannot be defeated by the subsequent adoption of a son to her husband is affected by the decision of the Privy Council in Anant Bhikappa Patil v. Shankar Ramchandra Patil (1943) 46 Bom. L.R. 1 p.c so as to give the adopted son the right of challenging the surrender made by the widow.2. The properties in these two suits belonged to one Aba Bajirao. He died leaving his widowed mother Laxmibai, his widow Sonubai and his daughter Tanubai. On his death his widow Sonubai succeeded to h...
Tag this Judgment!R.M.A.R.A. Adaikappa Chettiar Vs. R. Chandrasekhara thevar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR18
Simonds, J.1. These are consolidated appeals by special leave from two orders of the High Court of Madras, both dated January 27, 1942, the first setting aside in appeal an order of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura dated July 25, 1938, and the second setting aside in revision an order of the same Subordinate Judge made on February 9, 1939.2. The substantial question for decision in these appeals is whether the respondent s an agriculturist within the meaning of the Madras Agriculturists Relief Act (Mad. IV of 1938), hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.' But the appellant has argued as a preliminary point that, assuming the respondent to be an agriculturist within the meaning of the Act, the orders of the High Court which are under appeal were incompetent and that this appeal should succeed on that ground. It will be convenient to deal with this point first.3. The facts relevant to the determination of this question are these :4. On September 15, 1925, a final decree was passed...
Tag this Judgment!Sir Mohammad Akbar Khan Vs. Musammat Motal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR539
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province, dated April 28, 1941, affirming a judgment of the Additional Judge of Peshawar dated January 7, 1941, which affirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, 4th Class, Mardan, dated June 11, 1937. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the appellant against the respondents for possession of certain lands by redemption of a mortgage on paying the amount due upon the mortgage which is claimed to be Rs. 8.2. The facts giving rise to the appeal, which are not in dispute, are as follows:The mortgage for the sum of Rs. 8 which the appellant seeks to redeem has not been produced, and there is no evidence that any written mortgage ever existed. The evidence that the respondents are in possession of the lands in suit as mortgagees consists of:(a) An entry in the Jamabandi (Register of owners holding) for the year 1885-86 of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Lachhman Das Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax, Punjab, N.W.F. and D ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-29-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR543
M.R. Jayakar, J.1. This is an appeal under the provisions of Section 66A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore dated April 8, 1944, delivered and passed on a reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, under Section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1022 (XI of 1922), as subsequently amended, and hereinafter referred to as 'the Act.'The year of assessment concerned is 1938-39.2. The question referred to the High Court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') was as follows : 'Whether in the circumstances of this case, there could be a valid partnership between Lachhman Das as representing a Hindu undivided family on the one hand and Daulat Ram, a member of that undivided Hindu family in his individual capacity, on the other?' This question was decided by the High Court in the negative-thereby reversing the decision of the Tribunal dated September 8, 1942.3. A Hindu name...
Tag this Judgment!Ladobi Shaikh Umar Vs. Shankarlal Pannalal Kalantri
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-24-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR131
Dixit, J.1. In this appeal a preliminary point has been raised on behalf of the respondent and the facts necessary to understand the point are these.2. The respondent filed against the mother of the present appellant the suit giving rise to this appeal in order to enforce a mortgage dated March 28, 1926, In that suit the principal contention of the defendant was that the mortgage was not supported by consideration. The other defiance was that the defendant was an agriculturist. The learned trial Judge negative both these contentions and he proceeded to pass a decree in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 10,000 with costs and future interest at 6 per cent. on the principal sum of Rs. 5,000. From that decree the mother of the present appellant preferred an application in this Court for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Along with the application she also presented a memorandum of appeal. That was by civil application No. 337 of 1942. On April 10, 1942, this Court made an order re...
Tag this Judgment!N. Sankaranarayana Pillayan Vs. the Board of Commissioners for the Hin ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR9
M.R. Jayakar, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated April 30, 1943, setting aside a decree of the District Court of Tinnevelly dated March 7, 1941, whereby in a suit instituted for that purpose by appellants 1 to 4 a scheme framed by the first respondent Board under Section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act (Madras Act II of 1927) for the proper administration of the Sri Papavinasaswami Temple at Papanasam (hereinafter referred to as 'the temple') and of certain endowments (called kattalais) for special religious services therein, was substantially modified.2. In explanation of the nature of the dispute in this case, it may be stated at the outset, that in the temple (as in similar other temples in South India) there are inter alia, four or five well-defined periods of daily worship, for the due performance of each of which an endowment or kattalai exists, the name of the particular kattalai being indicative of the period of ...
Tag this Judgment!Premraj Vs. Chand Kanwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-21-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR4
Normand, J.1. The parties to this appeal are Jains of the Khandelwal sect domiciled and resident in Ajmer. The respondent is the sonless widow of a certain Ratanlal and on May 22, 1919, she executed a deed by which she adopted or purported to adopt the appellant to her deceased husband. After the execution of this deed the parties lived in the same house, but disagreements arose into which it is not necessary to enter. Finally, the present suit was commenced in November, 1930. The appellant, founding on his adoption, sought inter alia to restrain the respondent from wasting the family property, and the respondent in her defences challenged the validity of the adoption and alleged that Ratanlal had never given her authority to adopt a son to him. This allegation was made because under the general Hindu Law adoption by a widow without the prior authority of her husband is not recognised (Mulla, 7th ed., p. 516), and because it is also an established principle that the rules of Hindu law ...
Tag this Judgment!Rao Bhimsingh Vs. Shersingh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR1
John Beaumont, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dated October 8, 1939, which affirmed the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Nimar dated September 7, 1936, which in turn affirmed the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Khandwa, dated February 19, 1936.2. The appeal arises in execution proceedings in the following circumstances.3. In the year 1908 Rao Kishore Singh had instituted a suit against two widows to recover possession of an estate known as Bhamgarh Zemindary. In that litigation Kishore Singh was claiming that the estate was an impartible one and had descended upon him under the rule of primogeniture as the eldest male descendant of the last holder. His claim, if successful, would clearly operate for the benefit of an eldest sen who might succeed him. Kishore Singh obtained a decree in his favour from the trial Court, but the decree was reversed by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Cen...
Tag this Judgment!Province of Bombay Vs. Hormusji Manekji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1947
Reported in: (1948)50BOMLR524
Thankerton, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (N.J. Wadia and Sen JJ.) dated August 8, 1940, in a letters patent appeal, confirming a judgment and decree of a single Judge of that Court, Wassoodew J. dated April 11, 1938, in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, whereby a decree of the District Judge, Ahmedabad, dated October 8, 1934, was set aside, and the respondent's suit was, for the main part, decreed. The decree of the District Judge had confirmed a decree of the 1st Class Sub-Judge of Ahmedabad, dated October 24, 19.33, under which the respondent's suit was dismissed.2. On October 13, 1981, the respondent brought the present suit against the appellant praying for a declaration that the appellant was not entitled to recover from the respondent any assessment of certain land, of which the respondent was registered occupant, in excess of the amounts payable by him under agreements dated respectively July 25, 1900, February...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »