Mumbai Court August 1950 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.
Nana Sakharam Vs. Dadaji Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom19; (1950)52BOMLR892; ILR1951Bom209
Chagla, C.J. 1. This special second appeal raises a very short but a very interesting point of law. On 19-5-1923, one Mangore mortgaged the property in suit to defendant 1 for Rs. 5000, It was a possessory mortgage and a rent note was executed by Mangore agreeing to pay rent to defendant 1, and under that rent-note Mangore continued to remain in possession of the property, On 31-12-1930, Mangore executed a second mortgage in favour of the plaintiff.The plaintiff then filed a suit to enforce his mortgage. He obtained a decree and in execution of the decree the plaintiff purchased the mortgaged property on 25-10-1937. The mortgagor continued to be in possession of the property from 1923 to 1930 and he did not pay any rent to defendant 1. Therefore in 1928 defendant l filed a suit to recover possession of the property and also arrears of rent A decree was passed in his favour in 1930 under which he obtained possession, but he did not execute the decree for rent. The plaintiff then filed t...
Ramappa Vanappa Akale and ors. Vs. Laxman Malyappa Akale
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom258; (1950)52BOMLR839
Gajendragadkar, J. 1. This is a second appeal which has come to this Court from Kolhapur and it has been placed before a Pull Bench because the learned Chief Justice of the Kolhapur High Court had directed that it should be heard by a Full Bench on the ground that the question of limitation which it raised was of some importance. The question of limitation ariees in this way : 2. The property in suit is a piece of land attached to the office of the village sanadi and it originally belonged to the family of the plaintiff and the defendants. The sanadi holding this land was liable to render service as such sanadi in the village chavdi of Mardi. It would appear that some time in 1904 there was a partition in the family of the sanadis and the land now in suit fell to the share of the branch of defendant 1. Since then defendant 1 has been in possession of it. The plaintiff's father died on 9-11-1926. Thereafter a revenue inquiry was held as a result of which the name of the present plaintif...
Sarwar Merwan Yezdiar Vs. Merwan Rashid Yezdiar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-16-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom14; (1950)52BOMLR876; ILR1951Bom279
Chagla, C.J. 1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Coyajee J., who held that the Court had no jurisdiction to try a matrimonial suit which was filed in the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court over which he was presiding.Both the parties are Iranians professing the Zoroastrian faith. The plaintiff, who, is the wife, came to Bombay in 1940 from Persia, and the defendant came to Bombay in 1943, and they were married on 11-11-1944, The petition for divorce was filed on 2-7-1948, on the ground of cruelty. The defendant was registered as a foreigner and according to his written statement he was allowed to stay in India only under a special permit and was liable to be called upon to leave India at any time. The preliminary issue as to jurisdiction was argued before the learned Judge on the assumption that the defendant was not domiciled in India. The plaintiffs contention was that the fact that defendant was resident within jurisdiction was sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the Court. The le...
Pujamal Awadayappa and anr. Vs. State of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom244; (1950)52BOMLR788; ILR1950Bom795
Chainani, J. 1. These two appeals have been heard together, as they raise common questions of law. In both these cases, the accused were found distilling liquor. Certain quantities of illicit liquor and wash were also found in their possession. They have been convicted under Section 65(b), Bombay Prohibition Act for manufacturing liquor, Section 66(b) for possessing liquor and Section 65(f) of the Act for possessing materials and apparatus for the purpose of manufacturing liquor. On the evidence led against theaccused, we felt satisfied that their convictions were correct.2. Even though the main offence committed by them is that of manufacturing liquor, there is no doubt that their convictions for the offences of having in their possession liquor and materials and apparatus for preparing liquor are also legal, in view of Section 235, Criminal P. C. see illus. (i) (j) and (m) to that section. We, however, admitted the appeals in order to consider whether the separate sentences passed on...
The State of Bombay Vs. Pandurang Vinayak Chaphalkar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom263; (1950)52BOMLR852; ILR1951Bom271
Bavdekar, J.1. This is an appeal which has been filed by the State against 3 accused who were charged under Section 9(2) real with Section 4, Bombay Building (Control on Erection) Act, 1948.2. It is not in dispute that accused 1 in this case had put up, without obtaining permission from the Controller of Buildings, Bombay, appointed under the provisions of the Act, a cinema theatre, that the cinema theatre had not been completed and that it was in the process of construction when it was noticed that the permission of the Controller was not obtained. Accused 1 along with two others were then prosecuted for a breach of Section 9 (s) read with Section 4, Bombay Building (Control on Erection) Act, 1948.3. It is not necessary to set out the various defences which were taken on behalf of the accused persons because the one upon which they must succeed is that there is really no notification extending the operation of the Bombay Building (Control on Erection) Act, 1948, to areas other than ce...
Nandgopal Dulichand Gurilyar Vs. the State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ113
1. The appellant Nandgopal has been convicted of an offence under Section 302, Penal Code, read with Section 34 thereof for the murder of one Dalsingh of Mouza Dhana on 2342-1949 and sentenced to death,2. According to the prosecution, the appellant along with his brother Rajaram (who is absconding) and one Rambisal attacked with lathis Dalsingh when he had gone to answer the call of nature on the morning of 23-12-1949 and inflicted numerous injuries on his person. Dalsingh succumbed to these injuries within a few hours of the assault. The motive for the crime is said to be enmity between the family of the appellant and that of the deceased which had already taken in the past the toll of the life of Dulichand, the father of the appellant. This was about 16 to 18 years ago and the person responsible for Dulichand's death was Pooran, the brother of the deceased.3. As Rajaram is absconding, the appellant and Rambisal were the only persons who were tried together. We may mention at the outs...
Ramkrishna Vaman Pai Vs. Narayan Vaman Shanbhag
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom267; (1950)52BOMLR834
ORDERShah, J.1. In this second appeal a question of some importance arises which requires to be finally decided by a division bench. The question arises in the following circumstances. Survey No. 23 of the village of Uppinpattan was mortgaged to the Co-operative Credit Society of the village of Uppinpattan by the manager of the joint family to which the appellant belongs. In respect of the mortgage dues an award was made under Section 54, Co operative Societies Act, 1925, on 24-3-1930, of which the terms were as follows:'Now, I having summoned the parties and duly considered the matter referred to me, I do hereby order for reasons separately recorded that the defendant mentioned above shall pay to the plaintiff Society the amount of Rs. 750/- as principal and Rs. 187-13-8 as interest and costs of arbitration Ha. 12-8-0, thus in all Rs. 960-5-8 by 30-6-1930. In default the plaintiff do recover the amount with the village officer's remuneration by execution of the mortgaged lands as show...
State Government Vs. Jang Bahadur Singh and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1950
Reported in: 1951CriLJ36
Hidayatullah, J.1. This is an appeal by the State Government against the acqittal of the four respondents who were charged under Section 409, Penal Code, either substantively or as abettors. The four respondents belonged to the railway staff stationed at Bilaspur. Respondent l, Jang Bhadur Singh, was the Station Master at the time. Respondents S. G. Mule, M. G. Kelkat and H. E. Roy were goods, assistant goods and inward-shed clerks respectively,2. A wagon of potatoes in 135 bags was received from Jhusi, O. T. Railway, on 23-4-1918 and was unloaded and kept on the goods shed platform on 25-4-1918, It was consigned to Belt, and the consignor did not turn up till 28-1-1918. On that date, according to the prosecution, the consignment was examined by Dr. M M. Sinha Assistant Surgeon, Railway Hospital, Bilaspur,. and was declared to be offensive and unfit for human consumption. The Station Master there upon ordered the potatoes to be destroyed, and a communication was sent to the authorities...
FazlehusseIn Haiderbhoy Buxamusa and ors. Vs. Yusufally Adamji and ors ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1955Bom55; (1954)56BOMLR955
1. (After setting out the contentions of the parties, his Lordship proceeded:) Now at the date when the suit was filed the defendants were nationals of what then was British India and resided in the British Indian territory, but since the partition of India defendants Nos. 1 to 9 have been residents of territory which is beyond the territory of the Union of India, and I will assume for the purpose of argument that defendants Nos. 1 to 9 are not. residents of the Union of India and may be regarded as non-resident foreigners qua this Court. Again, when the suit was filed some of the properties belonging to the institution were in British India and some were outside British India. Even though the charity was outside the country, the trustees were residing in British India and the management of the trust was also carried on in British India. Since the suit was filed, however, the position of the parties qua this Court has been fundamentally altered. Not only is the charity a foreign charit...
Vasudeo Dagadulal and ors. Vs. Kankoochand Hirachand Visashrimali and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1950
Reported in: AIR1951Bom226; (1950)52BOMLR774; ILR1950Bom777
Bhagwati J. 1. This second appeal raises an important question with regard to the auction purchaser's rights in respect of the undivided interest of a coparcener in specific property belonging to a coparcenery, 2. The plaintiff, the auction-purchaser, filed the suit against the five defendants who were the members of the coparcenary and defendant. 6 who was their mother, for a partition by metes and bounds of the moveable and immoveable properties of the defendants, for the ascertainment and separation of the one-fifth share of his judgment-debtor, defendant 8, in the moveable and immoveable properties of the family and for allotment to the share of defendant 3 of the property in suit which he had purchased at the auction sale and for a declaration in accordance with the partition that he had the right to maintain possession of the property in his capacity as absolute owner thereof, for costs and further and other reliefs Defendants 1 to 5 filed their written statement in which they; c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›