Mumbai Court June 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.
Bhimaji Krishnarao Vs. Hanmantrao Vinayak and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-27-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom271; (1950)52BOMLR290
Chagla, C.J.1. The facts leading up to this first appeal are that one Vinayak Bothe had three sons, Dattatraya, Hanmantrao and Krishnaji. Vinayak and Dattatraya died long before 1923. Krishnaji died in 1923 leaving Hanmantrao as the sole surviving coparcener of the joint and undivided Hindu family, Krishnaji'a widow Eukhminibai adopted the plaintiff on 25th Jane 1935 and the plaintiff filed this suit for his half share in the joint family properties. The learned Judge gave relief to the plaintiff with regard to some properties, but in the main held that the alienations made by Hanmantrao were binding on him and he could not challenge those alienations and therefore refused to give the plaintiff relief. All the alienations challenged which were made by Hanmantrao were prior to 25th June 1935, and really the only question that has been agitated before us in this first appeal is whether Hanmantrao as the sole surviving coparcener was entitled to alienate joint family properties and whethe...
Dhondi Ganapati Patil Vs. Maruti Govind Patil and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom83
Chagla, C.J.1. A short but interesting point is raised in this second appeal as to the law which is applicable to the parties with regard to adoption after the Jath State was merged in the Province of Bombay. The District Judge of Jath held that a widow of a deceased coparcener was not entitled to adopt without the consent of the other coparceners and in doing so he followed a very early decision of this Court reported in Ramji v. Ghamau 6 Bom. 498 and he also followed a decision of the Supreme Court of Jath. Now, the Notification issued by the Government of Bombay on 2nd March 1948, under the Extra-Provincial Jurisdiction Act, 1947, makes provision as to the jurisdiction of the High Court and what law it has to administer when cases which were pending before Jath Courts stand transferred to this Court. By Section 4 of that Notification any law relating to any of the matters enumerated in Lists II and III in Schedule 7 to the Government of India Act, 1935, or any notification, order, s...
Namdeo Lokman Lodhi Vs. Narmadabai Keshoodeo
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1949
Reported in: (1949)51BOMLR987
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court of Poona, exercising appellate powers, confirming a decree for ejectment passed by the learned Extra Joint Subordinate Judge at Poona. The ejectment was sought by the landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent, and the main point that has been urged before us by Mr. Abhyankar and Mr. Kotwal is that inasmuch as no notice was given by the landlord determining the lease on the ground of non-payment of rent, there was no forfeiture and there was no right on the part of the landlord to re-enter the demised premises.2. Now, the law with regard to forfeiture is contained in Section 111(if) of the Transfer of Property Act, and a forfeiture results and a lease is determined in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof the lessor may re-enter, or in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in h...
Namdeo Lokman Lodhi Vs. Narmadabai Keshoodeo and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-23-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom123
Chagla, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the learned Judge, Small Cause Court of Poona, exercising appellate powers, confirming a decree for ejectment passed by the learned Extra Joint Subordinate Judge at Poona. The ejectment was sought by the landlord on the ground of non-payment of rent, and the main point that has been urged before us by Mr. Abhyankar and Mr. Kotwal is that inasmuch as no notice was given by the landlord determining the lease on the ground of non-payment of rent, there was no forfeiture and there was no right on the part of the landlord to re-enter the demised premises.2. Now, the law with regard to forfeiture is contained in Section 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, and a forfeiture results and a lease is determined in case the lessee breaks an express condition which provides that on breach thereof the lessor may re-enter, or in case the lessee renounces his character as such by setting up a title in a third person or by claiming title in himself...
Vishwanath Mahadev Adhikari Vs. Krishnaji Ramachandra Bodas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1949Bom390; (1949)51BOMLR744
M.C. Chagla, C.J.1. A very short point arises for determination in these civil revision applications. Certain applications were filed for adjustment of debts under the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act (Bom. XXVIII of 1939), and from the decisions of these applications appeals were preferred as contemplated by that Act. While the appeals were pending, Act XXVIII of 1939 was repealed and Act XXVIII of 1947 was enacted, and the question that we have to consider and decide is whether the appeals should be disposed of according to the provisions of law contained in Act XXVIII of 1947 or according to the provisions of law as contained in Act XXVIII of 1939.2. Now, the material provision which helps us to decide this question as contained in Act XXVIII of 1947 is Section 56 and in that section there are three provisos to which a reference might be made. The first proviso is:Provided that all proceedings pending before any such Board shall be continued before the Court as if an applicati...
Hatimali and anr. Vs. the Crown
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1949
Reported in: AIR1950Bom38; 1950CriLJ427
ORDERHemeon J.1. The applicants, Hatimali and Turabali were convicted and sentenced Under Sections 7 and 10, Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, to pay fines of Rs. 20,000 and Rupees 6000 respectively by the Section 30-Magistrate, Nagpur; and in appeal the Sessions Judge, Nagpur, altered the convictions to convictions under Kr. 81 U) and 117 of the Defence of India Rules, but maintained the sentences. The applicants have now come up in revision to this Court.2. They are partners of a firm which carries on in Nagpur the business of iron and steel goods under the name 'Khan Sahib M. Hassonjee and Sons' and is a registered stockholder. The applicants were subject to the control of the Regional Deputy Iron and Steel Controller, Bombay, who by the order Ex. P-22, dated 27th August I9i6, issued, under Clause 11 of the Iron and Steel (Control of Distribution) Order, 1941, directed all stock holders to deolare their stockei on 1st September 1916, as it was intended that sales of i...
Gomtibai Vs. Kanchhedilal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1949
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR5
Madhavan Nair, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur dated September 29, 1941, which set aside an order of the Additional District Judge of Jubbulpore, dated September 20, 1939.2. The appeal arises out of an application made by respondent No. 1 for the grant of probate of a will (dated July 31, 1938), executed by one Ganesh Prasad-hereinafter referred to as the testator-on August 1, 1938, in which he had been appointed as the executor.3. The testator died on August 4, 1938, and respondent No. 1, as the executor, applied for probate of the will on August 29, 1939.4. The appellant Gomtibai is the widow of the testator. She filed a caveat under Section 284(4) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, on September 15, 1938. In her written statement she denied the testamentary capacity of the testator, alleged that he was 'mentally and physically imbecile and infirm ', and that the will had been executed under the undue influence of Maheshwar...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›