Mumbai Court November 1949 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.
Mahanth Sudarsan Das Vs. Mahanth Ram Kirpal Das
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR493
Radcliffe, J.1. These are two appeals from the High Court of Judicature at Patna. They have been consolidated, and the central point upon which each appeal turns is the same : which of the parties is to be treated as the lawful owner of the piece of property in dispute? That piece of property is a four annas undivided share out of a fourteen annas partitioned share of an estate called Touzi No. 7898 in Mouza Awari, Pargana Lautana, District Darbhanga, and it is hereinafter referred to as 'the disputed property.'2. The two suits out of which the appeals arise were respectively a partition suit, (No. 89 of 1932) filed by the appellant on September 16, 1982, and a title suit (No. 72 of 1933) filed by the respondents in the second appeal on November 7, 1933. The appellant, who is the mahanth of a math or asthal called the Birpur Asthal, sought by the partition suit to obtain a declaration of his title to the, disputed property and an order for partition of the lands of which that property ...
Kisan Dhondu Vs. Shevantabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-18-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom254; (1950)52BOMLR327
Chagla, C.J.1. These appeals raise a very important question of Hindu law as to whether when applying the test of propinquity in determining who is the bandhu to succeed to a propositus, the females are to be excluded and the males are to be preferred even though the male may be lower in degree of relationship to the female.2. Before reviewing the authorities which have been cited at the bar, it would be perhaps better to lay down certain principles which are now well established. Mitakshara lays down three classes of bandhus, atma bandhus, pitru bandhus and matru bandhus, and the line of succession is laid down in order of preference of each class. Atma bandhus come first, then come the pitru bandhus, and finally come the matru bandhus. It is also well settled that in deciding who is to be preferred in each class, the test that must he applied is propinquity, the proximity of blood relationship. It is immaterial as to whether a particular bandhu is descended ex parte paterna or ex par...
Tiruchendur Sri Subramaniaswami Temple Vs. P. Ramaswami Pillai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR472
Lionel Leach, J.1. The appellant is the idol of a Hindu temple at Kasba Tiruchendur in the Province of Madras. The appeal arises out of a slut brought in the name of the idol by the trustee of the temple in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin for a decree for possession of properties which had formed the estate of one Minakshisundaram Pillai, who died on May 21, 1919. The appellant claimed to be entitled to the estate under a will executed by the deceased. The Subordinate Judge construed the will against the appellant and his decision was upheld by the High Court of Madras. The appeal is from the decree of the High Court.2. The will of the testator is dated May 20, 1919, and reads as follows : I am now an in-patient in the hospital at Madura, having undergone an operation for carbuncle. As I have suspicions about my surviving, I have bequeathed to my son, Pieha Pillai, the right to all my properties and moneys, etc., and he shall solely enjoy them. If he or his son has no c...
Government of the Province of Bombay Vs. Laxman Govind Deshmukh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-17-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom257; (1950)52BOMLR226
Bavdekar J.1. This is an appeal by the Government of Bombay against the acquittal of the opponent of an alleged contravention of an order made by the District Magistrate of Ahmednagar under the provisions of Section 2, Sub-section (1) (e), Bombay Public Security Measures Act, 1947. The order called upon the opponent, in the first instance, not to propagate at any meeting any opinion on the Government's scheme for the procurement of food grains; and then by another paragraph it called upon him to enter into a bond for Rs. 1,000 with two sureties for like amount for the due observance of the restrictions specified in the order.2. It appears from the evidence that the opponent did not give any bond, whereupon he was prosecuted under the provisions of Section 2 (6), Bombay Public Security Measures Act. The opponent was convicted by the learned trial Magistrate; but in appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, set aside the conviction. The only point which has been made before us is th...
Chandu Lal Agarwalla Vs. Khalilur Rahaman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR469
Simonds, J.1. In this appeal, which is brought ex part from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort Wiliam in Bengal affirming a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Jalpaiguri, it is necessary for their Lordships to deal only with one of the many questions which have in the course of the proceedings been debated in the Courts of India. Upon all other questions it has been properly conceded by learned Counsel for the appellants that the judgments under appeal cannot seriously be challenged.2. The single question argued before the Board was as to the validity of the plea raised by the appellants that the claim of the plaintiffs in the present suit to be lawful heirs of one Safiquddin, who died in testate on March 11, 1924, was res judicata in a previous suit, namely Suit No. 1 of 1922, which had been heard and determined by the Subordinate Judge of Jalpaiguri on August 23, 1924. If that plea was valid, there was no question but that the appeal must succeed...
Nagarmal Vs. Bajranglal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR467
Simonds, J.1. This appeal is brought from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Patna of February 8, 1944, which affirmed (save for a certain modification in regard to interest) a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Sambalpur of November 9, 1988.2. At all relevant times the appellants carried on business as traders at Sambalpur as a Hindu joint family under the name and style of Ramanand Ganpatrai. The first appellant was the managing member: the second and third appellants are his nephews and the fourth appellant is the son of the third appellant.3. The respondents are the sons and heirs of one Thanduram, who was first plaintiff in the proceedings out of which this appeal arises but has since died. At all relevant times these three persons carried on business as a Hindu joint family as dealers in rice and moneylenders at Sambalpur under the name and style of Thanduram Bajranglal.4. It is not disputed that between these two firms there had been prior to N...
Pandurang Bhimrao Kulkarni and ors. Vs. Malkappa Bhimgouda and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-14-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom302; (1950)52BOMLR146
Shah, J.1. The appellants filed Special civil Suit no. 75 of 1914 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Sholapur for a declaration that the sale-deed dated 12th May 1926, of Survey No. 50 of Bolkavathe in Sholapur Taluka executed by the father of defendants 5 and 6 and the grandfather of the appellants in favour of the father of defendants 1 and 2 was intended to operate as a mortgage and consequently they were entitled to redeem the mortgage. The plaintiffs prayed for an account of the mortgage and claimed redemption on payment of the balance remaining due, and further prayed for an order for payment of the amount found due by instalments. In the alternative, they asked for possession of the property on the ground that they had acquired title to the suit property by adverse possession for a period of more than twelve years as against defendants 1 to 4, i. e. between 1926 and 1940, and that they were wrongfully deprived of possession of the property. The suit was filed b...
Ratilal Nathubhai and anr. Vs. Rasiklal Maganlal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom326; (1950)52BOMLR338
Chagla, C.J.1. The question of law that arises in this second appeal is whether a Full Bench decision of this Court in Sitaram Laxmanrao v. Dharmasukhram Tansukhram 51 Bom. 971: A.I.R 1927 Bom. 487 , is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Privy Council in Puran Chand v. Monmotho Nath 55 I. A. 81: A. I. R 1928 P. C. 38.2. A few facts may be stated in order to understand the point of law that has been debated at the bar. The plaintiffs are vendees of a certain property and the property was sold to them by one Vinodrai and Sumantrai who executed a power of attorney on 20th March 1946, in favour of one Indulal, and it was in pursuance of this power of attorney that Indulal executed the sale in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants, who were the tenants of the vendors, challenged the plaintiffs' title to the property in the suit which the plaintiffs filed for ejectment of the defendants and for possession of the property.3. The contention of Mr. Shah on behalf of the appell...
Sanmukhsing Vs. the King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR465
Simonds, J.1. Their Lordships, having at the conclusion of the hearing intimated that they would humbly advise His Majesty to dismiss this appeal, now give their reasons.2. This is an appeal by special leave from an order of the Chief Court of Sind, in its appellate criminal jurisdiction, dated July 18, 1945, which summarily dismissed the appeal of the appellants from the conviction and sentences passed on them on March 24, 1945, by a Judge of the said Court, exercising Sessions Court jurisdiction, who, in accordance with the majority verdict of a jury, found (1) both of them guilty of being parties to a criminal conspiracy to cheat one Rochiram Asoomal Canser (Section 120B read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code) : (2) the first appellant guilty of having, in pursuance of the said conspiracy, forged two documents (referred to in the record as exs. A and B) purporting to be an agreement in duplicate executed at Lahore by a fictitious person called Dr. S.C. Rao, described therein...
T.A. Menon Vs. the King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR463
Reid, J.1. In 1934 the appellant was appointed to the Indian Civil Service. During 1943 he was employed as Additional District Magistrate at Midnapore, and while so employed he was concerned in the investigation of a charge of bribery against Dr. Panda, a sub assistant surgeon of the Bengal Nagpur Railway. While the case against Dr. Panda was still under investigation, the appellant was transferred from Midnapore and he went to Calcutta where he stayed for a time. It was alleged that on December 20, 1943, while in Calcutta he received a bribe from Dr. Panda and he was suspended. On July 6, 1945, the following order was made by the Governor of Bengal:In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1)(b) and Sub-section (2) of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act V of 1898) the Governor is pleased to accord sanction to the prosecution, of Mr. T.A. Menon of the Indian Civil Service under suspension in respect of(a) an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.(b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »