Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom334; (1953)55BOMLR227; ILR1953Bom789
Gajendragadkar, J.(1) This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 9 to 12 against the decree passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Hubli, directing them to deliver possession of the properties in suit to the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the daughter of Rayappa and her case was that after the death of her mother Chandawa she was entitled to the properties in suit. These properties are two fields Section Nos. 42 and 43 situated at Agrahar Timasagar and a house. These properties belonged to Rayappa who died leaving behind him three sons and four daughters. The last surviving son was Chandrappa. He died a minor. During his minority Rayappa's widow Chandawa alienated these properties as guardian of her minor son. On 25-9-1900, she mortgaged, all the three properties to Tejappa for Rs. 1,000. The interest agreed to be paid was 18 per cent, per annum & the period stipulated for repayment was six months. On 18-5-1904, Chandawa sold the two lands to Tejappa for Rs. 1,000 and in consequence the house which...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : 1953CriLJ1569
ORDERSen, J.1. The applicant Narsayya was convicted and sentenced to 6 months' rigorous imprisonment under Section 332, Penal Code, for causing hurt to Pandharinath (P.W. 4), a public servant in execution of his duties. His conviction and sentence were upheld in appeal by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Akola.2. The applicant is a resident of Malipura in Akola. He occupied the first storey of the building belonging to Harroon Seth. Mst. Gangu is his wife and Mst. Laxmi Is his daughter. Laxman is his son. On 5.10.1950, separate proceedings under Section 107, Criminal P.C. were started against the applicant, the members of his party and the party of Laxman Dhobi of Nawabpura. An application was made for issuing warrants of arrest. Shri J.Y. Deshmukh, magistrate first class, issued the warrants under Section 114 of the Code for the arrest of the applicant and the members of both the parties. The warrant against the applicant is Ex. P-22. Pandharinath, who was Station Officer to rifle r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom192; (1953)55BOMLR21; ILR1953Bom332
Chagla, C.J.[1] This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff under Order 21, Rule 103, and the suit came to be filed under the following circumstances.[2] The plaintiff's case was that ho was a subtenant of the defendant and the defendant filed a suit in the Small Cause Court for ejecting one Anna Adgauda Patil alleging that Patil was his sub-tenant. Patil admitted the fact and agreed to vacate the premises. Thereupon an order was passed by the Small Cause Court on 14-5-1945, ordering Patil to vacate the premises. The defendant obtained a warrant of possession and the plaintiff offered obstruction. The defendant took out an obstructionist notice and the plaintiff was ordered to hand over possession to the defendant. The plaintiff thereupon filed the present suit. The plaintiff in the suit prayed for a declaration that he was the tenant of the defendant and as such tenant entitled to remain in possession of the premises. He also sought for a declaration that the defendant was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom207; (1953)55BOMLR80; ILR1953Bom618
ORDER[1] Opponent 1 became a tenant of the petitioner under a mulgeni lease dated 27-2-1915. Under this lease, it was provided that if the tenant was in arrears of rent, the landlord would be entitled to terminate the lease and enter into possession. Admittedly on 13-2-1949, opponent 1 was in arrears of rent for three years and he was also in arrears of rent on 5-5-1949, for three years. 5-5-1949, being the material date to consider under the provisions of Section. 14 (1) (a) (i), Tenancy Act. On 22-8-1949, the landlord, the petitioner, made an application to the Mamlatdar for possession, and on 27-9-1949, the Mamlatdar ordered possession to the landlord. The tenant went to the Collector and the Collector reversed the order of the Mamlatdar on 2-8-1950. There was a revision application to the Tribunal and the Tribunal confirmed the Collector's order. In doing so it followed its earlier decision given on 23-4-1951, where the applicant was one Venkat Narayan Mahajan.[2] Now, the question...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1954)56BOMLR944
Shah, J.1. On November 17, 1947, a representative of one Parsram Parumal Dabrai (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) delivered at Karachi a parcel containing gold of the value of Rs. 1,80,000 to the Air India, Limited, (hereinafter referred to as the defendants) for carriage by their air service to Bombay. The parcel was accepted by the defendants, and on payment of Us. 164-8-0 as freight charges, the defendants made out a consignment note (exh. A) in favour of the plaintiff. The parcel, however, could not be delivered by the defendants to the consignee at Bombay, as it was lost. The plaintiff filed this suit to recover the value of the parcel on the plea that the loss of the parcel of gold was due to failure on the part of the defendants to take such care as a person of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances take of similar goods. In the plaint as originally filed, the claim was made on the allegation that the consignment note issued by the defendants and embodying ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom183; (1953)55BOMLR1
Chagla, C.J.[1] This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration that two orders of excommunication passed by defendant 1, who is the Head Priest of the Pawoodi Bohra Community, on 28-2-1934, and 28-4-1948, were void, illegal and of no effect, and also claiming damages from defendant 1. [2] The matter came before Shah J. who raised two preliminary issues. The plaintiff's contention was that the excommunication was bad in view of the Bombay Prevention of Excommunication Act (Bom. Act 42 of 1949), having come into operation on 1-11.1949. The contention of defendant 1 on that was that inasmuch as the orders of excommunication were passed prior to 1-11.1949, the Act had no application, and also that the Act was ultra vires inasmuch as it contravened certain provisions of the Constitution. The learned Judge, therefore, raised two issues, whether the-Act was ultra vires and the other was whether the Act was retrospective. The learned Judge's findings on both the issu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1954)56BOMLR962
Rajadiiyaksha, J. 1. This is an appeal against a decree passed by the Third Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedabad, in a suit which the plaintiff filed in ejectment. The few facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposing of this appeal are these. On January 5, 1939, the defendant passed a rent-note in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. After the expiry of five years, he passed another rent-note on February 6, 1944. The rent reserved was Rs. 183 per month. The tenancy actually began on January 3, 1944. The rent-note made a provision for the giving of one month's notice for the purpose of obtaining possession. On October 2, 1945, the plaintiff gave a notice to vacate. As the defendant did not vacate, the plaintiff filed a suit, No. 1770 of 1945, against the present defendant on December 12, 1946. In the written statement, which the defendant filed in that suit, the defendant contended that the suit property belonged not to the plaintiff, but ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom127; (1952)54BOMLR892; ILR1953Bom435
Chagla, C.J.(1) A very interesting question arises of Hindu law in this appeal which has been very ably argued by Mr. K.K. Desai on behalf of the appellants. One Bhimabai died on February 20, 1949, having made a will prior thereto on February 18, 1949. The Administrator General applied to the Court for letters of administration with the will annexed and the appellants fileda caveat, and the question arose as to whether the appellants were entitled to maintain that caveat. The learned Judge held that they were not so entitled and dismissed the caveat. It is from that decision that this appeal is preferred. (2) Now, one Arjun had a son by the name of Ramchandra and a daughter by the name of Kashibai. Ramchandra had a son by the name of Ganpatrao and the caveators are the sons of Ganpatrao. Kashibai had a daughter Bhimabai who was born to her not in wedlock but through an illicit connection with one Hirco, and in order to maintain the caveat the appellants have to satisfy us that they are...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom168; (1952)54BOMLR896; ILR1953Bom441
Chagla, C.J.[1] The question that arises in this appeal is whether this Court had jurisdiction to try a summary suit filed by the plaintiffs. The suit was for ejecting the defendants who according to the plaintiffs were their tenants and whose tenancy they had terminated by a notice to quit given on 28th October 1950. The tenancy aspired according to the plaintiffs on 30th November 1950 and the suit was filed on 20th April 1951. The learned Chamber Judge gave leave to the defendants to defend and the leave was limited to the issue of jurisdiction. The issue of jurisdiction was tried and the learned Judge came to the conclusion that this Court had jurisdiction to try this suit. It is from that decision that this appeal is preferred.[2] Now, it is clear from the plaint that the suit is between landlord and tenant and it is for the recovery of property demised to the tenant and the possession is sought from a tenant who is holding over after the determination of the tenancy. The rent of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1953Bom174; (1952)54BOMLR950; ILR1953Bom230
Chagla, C.J.(1) This is an application in I revision against the decision of the District Judge, North Satara, holding that Explanation a (a) to Section 13(1)(g), Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, was 'ultra vires' and void; and the learned District Judge came to hold that under the following circumstances. (2) The petitioner is a tenant, and he went to live in the premises as a tenant in 19-11. The opponent, who is a landlord, purchased ths property on 23-6-1947, and he filed a suit for ejectment against the applicant. One of the grounds urged by him was that he required the premises reasonably and bona fide for his own use and occupation. The learned Judge held the requirements of the landlord established, but came to the conclusion that as the landlord had purchased the property after 1-1-1947, by reason of Explanation (a) to Section 13(1)(g), he was not entitled to eject the tenant. Thereupon he dismissed the suit. An appeal was preferred to the learned...
Tag this Judgment!