Mumbai Court January 1950 Judgments
Laxmipatirao Shriniwas Rao Deshpande Vs. Krishtrao Bhimrao Deshpande a ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-25-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom356; (1950)52BOMLR342
[1] This second appeal raises a question of Hindu law which is whether a Hindu son is liable to pay the debt of his father in respect of a liability incurred by him in relation to a decree for mesne profits.[2] The appellant who is the son of defendant 1 contends that he is not liable to pay the debt because the debt is ayyavaharika, and the question is whether the contention is well founded. The facts necessary to understand the question may be shortly stated.[3] The suit giving rise to this appeal has a genesis in a suit instituted as long ago as 1902. That was Suit No. 558 of 1902 on the file of the Second Class Joint Subordinate Judge, Hubli. The suit was brought by one Trimal or Timappa Bhimrao claiming a 1/5th share in the estate of one Hanment who had left a widow Gangabai and who died in 1898 without leaving any issue. The property in respect of which the suit was brought was in possession of defendant 1 in that suit who is the grand-father of the present appellant. Defendant 1...
Tag this Judgment!Kapildeo Singh Vs. the King
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1950
Reported in: (1950)52BOMLR512
Mahajan, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the High Court at Patna affirming the conviction of the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah, under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The appellant was charged along with 13 others with having been a member of an unlawful assembly, 'with the common object of dispossessing one Chulhan Tewari (the complainant) and assaulting and murdering one Nasiba Ahir and others' and with having committed, in furtherance of that common object, offences under Sections 302, 326 and 147 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case was that the appellant led a party of 60 or 70 men armed with a gun and lathis to the scene of occurrence with a view to dispossess the complainant of the land bearing survey No. 520 appertaining to Khata No. 59 in village Sikaria, which the complainant claimed to belong to him. As the mob came upon the land the complainant remonstrated against their action, when the ...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Pandu Yadav and anr. Vs. Mahadu Baburao Yadav Patil and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom170; (1950)52BOMLR599; ILR1950Bom487
Shah, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Satara, in Special Suit no. 6 of 1946. The plaintiff, as an adopted son of one Baburao, filed the suit for possession of items Nos. 1 to 18 as described in Schedule A annexed to the plaint, and for recovery of mesne profits for three years prior to the date of the suit at the rate of RS. 245 per annum and for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 400 per annum from the defendants. The learned trial Judge has passed a decree in his favour awarding him possession of lots Nos. 1 to 18 and Rs. 645 by way of mesne profits for three years prior to the date of the suit have been awarded against defendants 1 and 2, Rs. 90 against defendants 3 and 4, and future mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 350 from defendants 1 and 2 and Rs. 60 from defendants 3 and 4. Mesne profits after the date of the decree are ordered to be ascertained under Order 20, Rule 12, Clause (c), Civil P. C. It is against this decree that defe...
Tag this Judgment!Ram Ganu Ghadge Vs. Hari Sambhu Ghadge
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-20-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom346; (1950)52BOMLR358
Dixit, J.1. This second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants possession of a piece of land admeasuring 8 gunthas out of Survey No. 187/2 situate at Mhavashi in the Patan taluka of the Satara District.2. Prior to the Falni survey, Survey No. 187/ 2 corresponded to Survey No. 187/3. The area of the land was 16 gunthas and was of the ownership of the plaintiff's grandfather Dulbaji. Dulbaji had two sons, namely, Sambhu and Dhondi. Each of the two sons had 8 gunthas for his share. The western portion of Survey No. 187/3-1 belonged to Dhondi, while the eastern portion of Survey No. 187/3-2 belonged to the plaintiff.3. In 1917, the plaintiff mortgaged the eastern 8 gunthas along with some other properties to defendant 2. Defendant 2 brought Suit No. 231 of 1928 to enforce the mortgage and obtained a decree. In 1931 defendant 2 filed darkhast No. 136 of 1931 to execute the decree. The execution proceedings were sent to the Collector, and the Collec...
Tag this Judgment!Kanji Devsi Shet Vs. Velji Haridas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-13-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom350; (1950)52BOMLR405; ILR1951Bom696
Chagla, C.J.[1] The question that we have to consider on this application is whether an appeal preferred to this Court is in time. The material dates are these. The Court pronounced judgment on 29th September 1948. Copies were applied for of the judgment and of decree on the 11th October 1948. Copies of the judgment were furnished on 21st October 1948. The decree was signed on 22nd October 1948, and the copy of the decree was furnished on 26th October 1948. The appeal was preferred on 27th January 1949. Limitation would begin to run from 29th September 1948, and the last day on which the appeal could be filed would be 28th December 1948. In fact the appeal was preferred on 27th January 1949, and the question, that we have to consider is whether the appeal was in time.[2] Now, under S. 12, Limitation Act, in computing the period of limitation, the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree is to be excluded under sub-s. (2). Also under sub-s. (3) the time requisite for obtaining ...
Tag this Judgment!Ganesh Sao Hari Prasad Sao Vs. Sm. Sheomala Devi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-12-1950
Reported in: AIR1950Bom168; 1950CriLJ1141
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The non-applicant Sheomala Devi was awarded monthly maintenance at the rate at B9. SO against her husband Ganesh Sao, the applicant, by the First Class Magistrate, Ambi- kapur, Under Section 488, Criminal F. 0., and his revision application was summarily dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur. He has now come up in revision to this Court.2. Sheomala Devi's case was that from September or October 1947 her husband, who had a Fankin mistress also living in the house, actively disliked her, failed to provide her with food and clothes, had her beaten by a Muslim and turned her out of the house, the applicant's case was per contra that she had of her own accord left him on 7th December 1947 and taken away considerable cash and ornaments. He bad, he claimed, no objection to her residence with him, he denied that he had kept a concubine and asserted that the woman in question was a maid servant who was now in the employ of Kuber, gaontia.3. Nagwant Sahai (A.W. ...
Tag this Judgment!Shripad Gopalkrishna Chandavarkar Vs. Sidram Satappa Dodamani and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-06-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom167; (1950)52BOMLR594; ILR1950Bom421
Rajadhyaksha, J.1. This is a second appeal from a decree passed by the Assistant Judge at Belgaum modifying the decree of the trial Court and thereby decreeing the plaintiff's suit in toto.2. The plaintiff filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises for the recovery of a sum of RS. 4,998, including the interest due on two mortgages. The first mortgage, which is Ex. No. 85 in the case, was dated 2-7-1928, and was for a sum of Rs. 3,500. The second mortgage, which is EX. No. 84 in this case, was executed on 15-3-1929, and was in respect of a sum of Rs. 300. The two documents were executed by defendant 1 in favour of the father of the present plaintiff. Defendants 3 to 6 were the sons of defendant 1; defendant 2, who is the appellant before us, was a purchaser at an auction sale in execution of his own decree against the mortgagor's right, title and interest in the property, and as such he was impleaded as a party to the suit. It appears that prior to the institution of this sui...
Tag this Judgment!Chhotu S/O Imamkhan Vs. King-emperor
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-05-1950
Reported in: 1950CriLJ1007
ORDERHemeon, J.1. The applicant Sheikh Chhotu was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of BSection 100 by the First Class Magistrate, Nagpur, Under Section 188, Penal Code and his appeal was dismissed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Hagpur. He has now come up in revision to this Court.2. The applicant bad been declared a tout Under Section 36 (4), Legal Practitioners Act and he was so shown in Civil Circular Memorandum No. IS issued by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Nagpur, on 7th July 193d. Although he was as a tout excluded from the preoinots of the Courts in Nagpur, be on 7th October 1946 approached Lalman (P.W. 8), postman, under the tamarind tree between the Bar room and the civil Court and asked him concerning letters addressed to Baghunathsingh, attorney to Shri Y. P. Verma, Barrister, at law. Lalman then delivered to him a registered letter addressed to Baghunathsingh and obtained his signature on the acknowledgment form. This was witnessed by Shri R. E. Mano...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›