Mumbai Court July 1952 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.
Prabhakar Bhaskar Vs. Usha Prabhakar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom189; (1953)55BOMLR59; ILR1953Bom323
Rajadhyaksha, J.[1] This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiff against the decision of the suit filed by him for dissolution of his marriage with the defendant. The plaintiff sued for dissolution of his marriage on the ground that although they were married on 11-5-1944, his wife had deserted him for a continuous period of over four years'. The suit was defended by the wife on the allegation that she had not deserted the plaintiff, and that whenever she was away from her husband's house, there was reasonable cause which justified her in doing so.[2] The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the defendant bad deserted her husband for a continuous period of over four years, and that, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for divorce. Accordingly the learned Judge passed a decree declaring that the defendant's marriage with the plaintiff was dissolved from the date of his judgment. In making that order, he directed that the plaintiff should pay a maintenance o...
Trimbak Sopana Vs. Gangaram Mhatarba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-17-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom241; (1953)55BOMLR56; ILR1953Bom586
ORDER(1) A suit was filed by the opponent against the petitioner for possession in the civil Court. The opponent's contention was that the petitioner was a trespasser. The defence taken up by the petitioner was that he was not a trespasser, but a protected tenant. The learned. Civil Judge, Junior Division, came to the conclusion that the issue as to whether the defendant was a trespasser or a protected tenant was an issue which was triable under Section 70 (b), Bombay Tenancy Act by the Mamlatdar, and he had no jurisdiction to try the issue. Therefore, be ordered the plaintiff to present the suit to the proper Court. In corning to this conclusion, the learned Judge expressed an opinion that he was convinced that the defendant was a trespasser, but inasmuch as, in the view o the learned Judge, he had no jurisdiction, he did not pass any decree in favour of the plaintiff. The matter was taken in appeal to the learned Assistant Judge, Ahmednagar, and the learned Assistant Judge held that ...
Balmukund and Co. Vs. Mangaldas Tribhovandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-16-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom200; (1953)55BOMLR50; ILR1953Bom316
ORDER[1] The petitioners who are the landlords terminated the tenancy of defendant 1 by a notice dated 28-6-1947. Therefore, it is clear that after the notice became effective defendant i ceased to be a contractual tenant and became a statutory tenant. On 30-11-1919, defendant 1 executed a deed of assignment in favour of opponent 2 who wag defendant 3 in the suit, assigning to him his right, title and interest in the business which he was carrying on and also his interest in the tenancy. The plaintiffs then filed this suit in the Small Causes Court for an order of ejectment both against their tenant and against defendant 3. The trial Court hold in favour of the petitioner, but the appellate Court of the Small Causes Court has reversed the decision of the trial Court. It is from that decision that this revision application is preferred. [2] Now, certain positions that arise in law are beyond dispute. As the contractual tenancy had already terminated, defendant 1 had no interest in the p...
Karim Ismail Vs. Abdul Rahiman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom353; (1953)55BOMLR119; ILR1953Bom565
Dixit, J.(1) This appeal arises from a suit filed, by the plaintiff-respondent to recover from the defendant-appellant a sum of Rs. 6,900. The suit is based upon a hand-loan dated 23-54944. The defence to the suit was that there was no hand-loan given by the plaintiff to the defendant but that the sum of Rs. 10,000 paid by the plaintiff to the defendant was towards the dues owing by him to the defendant. This defence did not prevail in the trial Court and the learned trial Judge passed in favour of the plaintiff a decree for the amount claimed with interest and costs as set out in the order. The defendant has come up in appeal.(2) Upon this appeal Mr. Joshi for the defendant-appellant contends that the plaintiff's suit giving rise to this appeal was barred by the law of limitation. It is to be noted that in the trial Court the plea of limitation was not taken by the defendant, but that makes no difference, because Section 3, Limitation Act, provides that'Subject to the provisions conta...
HussaIn Sab Vs. Sitaram Vighneshwar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom122; (1952)54BOMLR947; ILR1953Bom309
ORDER(1) A suit was filed by the plaintiff to recover possession of a house which was described as bearing No. 1372. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, and the decree was confirmed by the District Judge. There was a second appeal to this Court, and it was summarily dismissed. On January 31, 1951 the plaintiff made an application under Section 152, Civil P. C. to the District Court for amendment of the decree, alleging that the house had been wrongly described as bearing No. 1372 when in fact it bore No. 1572. The District Court granted the application. It is from that order that this revisional application is preferred. (2) It is contended before me that, inasmuch as an appeal was preferred to this Court, the application for amendment should have been granted, if at all, not by the District Court, but by this Court, and, therefore, the order of the District Judge was without Jurisdiction. Now, the ordinary principle is that the decree of...
Nabi BavadIn Nadaf Vs. Murigeppa Dhulappa Bulli
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom238a; (1953)55BOMLR117
Chagla, C.J.(1) The question which arises in. this re visional application is whether the petitioner is a debtor within the meaning of the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. He has satisfied all the qualifications, and the only controversy is with regard to the qualification under Section 2(5)(a)(iv). That clause provides that a 'debtor' means an individual whose annual income from sources other than agriculture and manual labour does not exceed 33 per cent, of his total annual income, or does not exceed Rs. 500, whichever is greater. Now, in this case, the agricultural income of the debtor is Rs. 200 and the non-agricultural income is Rs. 340. Therefore, it is clear that the non-agricultural income does not exceed Rs. 500. But the view taken by both the Courts below is that, inasmuch as the non-agricultural income exceeds 33 per cent. of his total income, he is not a debtor. Now, the Judges below have overlooked the fact that the Legislature has hot used the expression 'and' but ...
Shankar Nagu Vs. Mahibub Bandu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-09-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom123; (1952)54BOMLR938; ILR1953Bom143
Chagla, C.J. (1) The petitioner made an application under Section 4, Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act for the adjustment of his debts. That application was dismissed and there was an appeal to the learned District Judge who confirmed the order of the trial Court. (2) Now, it has been found as a fact that a Board for adjustment of debts was established in Pandharpur, the area with which we are concerned, on January 1, 1942, and the last date for making an application for the adjustment of debts under the old Act of 1939 was June 30, 1943, and it has been found that the petitioner was a debtor within the meaning of the old Act and he should have made an application under the provisions of the old Act. If that be so, it is clear that his application under Section 4 of the present Act is barred. Section 4 requires three conditions. He must be a debtor, he must make an application before August 1, 1947, and also in the area in which he resides no Board under the repealed Act must have...
Ebrahim Aboobaker and anr. Vs. U.M. Mirchandani
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom26; (1952)54BOMLR822; ILR1953Bom406
Chagla, C.J.[1] This appeal raises a shout question as to the jurisdiction of the Custodian to decide an appeal under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1930. On 28th December 1951, the Deputy Custodian declared the properties of the appellants to be evacuee properties, holding that they were evacuees within the meaning of Section 2 (d) (i) and 2 (d) (iii). The appellants preferred an appeal from this decision to the District Judge. They also preferred an appeal to the Custodian without prejudice to their contention that no appeal lay to the Custodian. When the Custodian fixed the date for the heaving of the appeal, the appellants preferred a petition to this Court for a writ of prohibition.We would like to observe that the petitioners should have waited for the decision of the Custodian before coming to this Court. As they had preferred the appeal to the Custodian and as they had raised the question of jurisdiction, primarily it was for the Custodian to decide whether he had ...
Lingangouda Marigouda Vs. Lingangouda Fakirgouda and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom79; (1952)54BOMLR829; ILR1953Bom214
ORDER(1) This revision application raises a question of limitation. The plaintiff and defendant No. 2 on the one hand and defendant No. 1 on the other paid to the Sangli State assessment in the sum of Rs. 582-6-4. The plaintiff & defendant No. 2 paid a moiety as they were liable to pay and defendant No. 1 paid the other moiety. On June 4, 1938, the Sangli State ordered that this amount of assessment which was paid should be refunded, and instead of refunding half to plaintiff and defendant No. 2 and the other half to defendant No. 1, the State refunded the whole amount to defendant No. 1. On April 6, 1943, the plaintiff filed the suit claiming on his behalf and on behalf of defendant No. 2 the half share, viz, Rs. 291-3-2. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit holding it was barred by limitation. The learned District Judge who has reversed the decision held that the suit is in time and decreed it, and the question that arises is whether the suit is governed by Article 62 or Ar...
Bapu Piraji and anr. Vs. Bhiku Nagu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom120; (1952)54BOMLR935; ILR1953Bom211
ORDER(1) A very interesting point has been raised by Mr. Gokhale on this revision application. A suit was filed by the petitioners under Section 15D of the. Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act for accounts. The claim in suit was valued at Rs. 5 and it was instituted in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karjat. A certain transaction was challenged as a mortgage. The learned Judge held that the transaction was a mortgage and not a sale and found that there was nothing due at the foot of the mortgage on taking accounts. Then the petitioners made an application under Sub-section (3) of Section 15D for redemption of the mortgage. In that application the petitioners prayed that the suit for accounts be converted into a suit for redemption. They paid the necessary court-fees on a redemption suit and thereupon the learned Judge passed a redemption decree. From this decree an appeal was preferred to the District Court, Ahmednagar. The appeal was heard by the Assistant Judge. He allo...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »