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.
State Vs. Gulam Mahomed, and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom152; (1952)54BOMLR968; ILR1953Bom412
Bhagwati, J.[1] In regard to Cri. Appln. No. 499 of 1952 which is an application for expunging certain remarks which were made by the learned Presidency Magistrate against Essa Noor Mohomed, it will be apposite to refer to the principles which govern the applications for expunging such, remarks as laid down in the authorities. The first case to which our attention was drawn by Mr. K. A. Somjee in this connection was In re Public Prosecutor, : AIR1944Mad320 . It was a decision of Leach C. J. and Lakshmana Rao J. of the Madras High Court. In the case before the learned Judges of the Madras High Court, a sort of a homily was preached by the learned Sessions Judge to the Government in regard to the desirability of not enforcing too strictly certain punitive measures which were enacted by the Government. The Government had made an application for an order expunging these remarks from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Chief Justice in the course of the judgment observed...
Shivprasad Deviprasad Vs. Jankibai Jugalkishore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom321; (1952)54BOMLR940; ILR1953Bom219
(1) The dispute in this appeal relates to properties which originally belonged to one Ganpatlal Farasharam of shirpur in the West Khandesh District, Ganpatlal died in 1929 leaving behind two married daughters, the plaintiff Janki-bai and the original defendant Sitabai and a widow Devakibai. Ganpatlal left behind him a large estate, consisting of lands and houses valued in the plaint at Rs. 1,00,000 and movable properties worth about Rs. 8,400. Devakibai died on 29-10-1943. The moveable properties of Ganpatlal were then divided equally between Jankibai and Sitabai. They also made applications to the revenue authorities stating that they were the joint heirs of their father Ganpatlal and that the names of both of them should be entered in the revenue records. The lands were accordingly entered in the names of both of them in the revenue records. It appears that all the houses and the lands, except a hall in a bungalow at Shirpur, were in the possession of tenants. The defendant looked af...
Tattya Mohyaji Dhomse Vs. Rabha Dadaji Dhomse
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom273; (1953)55BOMLR40; ILR1953Bom570
Rajadhyaksha, J.(1) The plaintiff in the suit from which this second appeal arises was one Rabha Dadaji. Dadaji had four sons, Balm, Ganga, Taba and Rabha. The four brothers formed a Joint family of which the eldest brother Babu was the manager. As such manager, he conveyed the suit property by a conditional sale-deed in favour of the defendant on24-10-1325. After the execution Of this conditional sale-deed, there was, according to the finding of the lower Court, a partition between the four brothers. Although there was severance in interest between the four brothers, Babu and Taba's son (Taba was dead by that time) chose to live together and Ganga and Rabha who was then a minor lived together. During the minority of Rabha, Ganga sold the suit property to the defendant in the year 1930 for a sum of Rs. 1,000. More than seven years after attaining his majority, Rabha filed the present suit for recovery of possession of his l/4th share in the suit property on the allegation that the tran...
Dewanchand and Sons Vs. Dora Amy Few
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1952
Reported in: AIR1953Bom80; (1952)54BOMLR754; ILR1953Bom304
Chagla, C.J.(1) This appeal arises out of a summary suit filed by the plaintiff. On a summons for judgment taken out by her, the learned Judge made an order granting leave to the defendants to defend on certain conditions. In appeal it has been contended by the Advocate General that apart from the question of merits the summons for judgment is bound to fail as it does not comply with the provisions'of Rule 211. Rule 211 provides that if the defendant enters an appearance, the plaintiff shall, on affidavit made by himself, or by any other person who can swear to the facts of his own personal knowledge verifying the cause of action and the amount claimed, and stating that, in his belief there is no defence to the action,'apply by summons for judgment returnable within a certain period. Therefore, the application of the plaintiff for summons for judgment is conditional upon an affidavit being filed as laid down under Rule 211. The affidavit can be by the plaintiff himself or it can be by ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›