Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1962Bom1; (1961)63BOMLR411; ILR1961Bom768
(1) This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by plaintiff for possession of certain immoveable properties which originally belonged to one Madhavrao.(2) The following pedigree will show the relationship of the persons to whom reference will have to be made in the course of this judgment:MADHAVRAO - BHIVRABAI___________\__________ Kondbarao - Banubai Ramrao Sahebrao(Plaintiff)________________ (Adopted) Rangrao (Defendant No.2)(Adopted)Kondbarao died during the lifetime of his father Madhavrao and his mother Bhivrabai. He left behind him widow Banubai. Thereafter Madhavrao died, leaving behind him his second son Ramarao his widow Bhivrabai and his daughter-in-law Banubai, the widow of his pre-deceased son Kondbarao. Some time after the death of Madhavrao, Ramarao also died.(3) It is the case of the plaintiff that Ramarao died unmarried and his mother Bhivrabai became his heir and thereafter she adopted him as a son to her deceased husband Madhavrao and executed a deed of adoption in h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1962Bom45; (1961)63BOMLR581; ILR1961Bom831
V.S. Desai, J.(1) The appellant, who is the original plaintiff, has filed a suit in forma pauperis in the City Civil Court at Bombay for declaration that the Memo. Dated 15th December 1956 terminating his service amounted to an order of dismissal and the same was illegal and wrongful and, therefore, he continued to be in Government Service on the same rank and on the same post from the date on which he was discharged and for recovering damages in the sum of Rs. 20,000 and costs of the suit. The suit was dismissed with costs by the Trial Court and against that decree of the trial Court the plaintiff has filed the present appeal in forma pauperis.(2) The plaintiff, who had for some time worked in the Army, joined the Office of the Joint Controller of Imports and Exports as a temporary lower division clerk on 4th July 1946. On 16th November 1950, he was promoted as an upper division clerk but in April 1956, he was again reverted to the grade of lower division clerk. Against this revision ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR721
Kotval, J.1. In this revision application I am concerned with an election dispute arising from the general elections recently held to reconstitute the Buldana Municipal Committee. The dispute is between persons who had stood for election from, ward No. 16 of Buldana town. This ward has two seats, a general seat and a reserved seat. The applicant Trimbaksa and opponents Nos. 4, 5 and 6, Syed Habib, Premchand and Laxman, respectively, were contesting the election from the general seat, whereas applicant No. 2 Janardhan and opponents Nos. 2 and 3, Gopal and Janabai, respectively, were contesting the election from the reserved seat. Opponent No. 1 Habib Mohammad was the petitioner before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Buldana. Prior to the present election, he was also elected as a member of the municipal committee from the general seat from the old ward No. 12.2. The election was governed by the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Electoral Rules, as recently amended. According to the election pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR732
Kotval, J.1. This is an application for revision under Section 20-A(3) of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities Act, 1922. It relates to a municipal election dispute. General elections were recently held in several municipalities in the Vidarbha area. In this revision, I am concerned with the election of members from ward No. 7 of the Karanja Municipal Committee. The applicant Trikamji, son of Damaji, who moved the election petition, was one of the candidates for election from the said ward. Opponents Nos. 1 to 4 had also filed their nomination papers, but opponents Nos. 3 and 4, Kisan Kondba Jadhao and Nivritti Pandu Shende, respectively, withdrew their candidature within the time fixed. The nomination of opponent No. 2 Ramchandra Ganu Jadhao was rejected by the Supervising Officer and that rejection has not been disputed. Therefore, at the election there were only two contestants, namely, the applicant Trikamji and opponent No. 1 Bhikalal 'Wadilal Shah. Bhikalal has been declared elected...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom215; (1961)63BOMLR602
Tambe, J.1. The question that arises for consideration in this appeal relates to the construction of the expression 'signed by him or on his behalf' occurring in the first part of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Following facts give rise to this question. One Shankarlal, father of plaintiff-appellants 1 and 2 and husband of plaintiff No. 3, agreed to sell field S. No. 91/1, area 4 acres 15 gunthas, situate in mouza Khel Dalvi in Jalgaon taluq, district Buldana, for a consideration of Rs. 300/-, to one Sk. Yakub, husband of defendant-respondent Sharifa Bi. A draft sale-deed embodying all the terms of the contract was duly signed by Shankarlal. Sk. Yakub paid the entire consideration to Shankarlal and possession of the Held in suit was delivered by Shankarlal to Sk. Yakub at the time of the execution of the draft sale-deed, This sale-deed, however, was not registered on account of the sudden death of Shankarlal. Since 16-12-1941 Sk. Yakub ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom282; (1961)63BOMLR408
Patel, J. 1. These two appeals are by the four accused who have been convicted under Section 366 read with section 34 and Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years' rigorous imprisonment on each count, the sentences being directed to run concurrently. These accused were charged along with four others. Accused No. 7 was a motor driver and accused No. 8 is his Wife. The girl in this case is one Anusaya, the daughter of one Shakunthala whose husband died when Anusaya was yet a very small child. Shakuntala started living with accused No. 7 as his mistress bringing the child with her. After some time accused No. 7 started ill-treating her as a result of which she left him and went to Nasik and married some one else. The girl Anusaya, however, continued to be with accused No. 7 who reared her up. He got her married about a few months before the present incident. The girl stayed with her husband Maruti alias Ramlal for a few days and then was called back by accused No. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1962)64BOMLR462
Naik, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellants (plaintiffs) against the respondents (defendants) for a declaration that the award decree passed in regular suit No. 230 of 1949 is not binding upon them and for perpetual injunction restraining defendants Nos. 1 to 4 from executing the said decree against the plaintiffs or their property. The material facts may be briefly stated as follows: One Mahamad Saheb had two wives, Jainbi and Saheb-bi; Jainbi being the senior. Mahamad Saheb had a son, Abdul liazak born of Jainbi and two daughters and one son Shafla Begum and Zebunnissa (plaintiffs) and Abdul Kahiman (defendant No. 6) respectively born of Sahebbi. After the death of Mahamad Saheb disputes started between Abdul Razak on one side and Sahebbi on the other. It appears that Abdul Razak usurped the entire property belonging to Mahamad Saheb with the result that Sahebbi had to be a suit on her own behalf and also on behalf of her minor children for partition of the fa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom242; (1961)63BOMLR559; [1961]31CompCas324(Bom); ILR1961Bom508
Tarkunde, J.1. These criminal references arise from 19 criminal cases filed by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation against the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Company, limited, hereafter referred to as the Company, for alleged evasion of octroi dues. In alt the cases the Company is accused of offences under Section 152 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948, and in some of them under Section 420, Indian Penal Code. 2. On 18-12-1959 the Municipal Corporation filed a list of witnesses to whom summonses were to be issued and the list included the store keeper or the Wardha branch of the Company and the Assistant Accountant of the Company at Nagpur, both of whom were cited only for the production of certain documents and records belonging to the Company. Summonses were accordingly ordered to fee issued by the learned trial Magistrate. The Company then applied to the learned Magistrate for the withdrawal of the summonses or the ground that they violated the protection against self-incrimi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1962Bom35; (1961)63BOMLR595; ILR1961Bom814
(1) This appeal arises an interesting question under Hindu Law and also the provisions of the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act and the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Appellant No. 1 Audumbar who would hereafter be called the husband, was married to Sonubai, the respondent who would hereafter be called the wife, in the month of March 1946. The husband filed a suit against the wife being Suit No. 664 of 1952, asking for divorce on the ground that the wife was living in adultery with one Baba Mahadu who was also added as a co-respondent in that suit. On that ground and also on the ground of desertion the husband asked for dissolution of the marriage under the provisions of the Bombay Hindu Divorce Act 1947. The wife resisted the suit and denied the allegations made by the husband on both the points viz. adultery and desertion. On 11th March 1954 there was a compromise between the husband and the wife under which it was settled that these spouses should pass divorce deeds according to the custom of the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1961)63BOMLR376
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner is a resident of Chembur in Bombay. His name was shown in the Municipal Election Roll, which came in force from December 20, 1956, A new list of voters was prepared before August 1, 1960, as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. The petitioner was not in Bombay in August and September 1960. The petitioner's case is that when he was in Delhi, he learnt that his name had been omitted from the list of voters. On August 25, 1960, he, therefore, addressed a letter to the Municipal Commissioner, requesting that his name and the names of other members of his family should be entered in the electoral roll. This letter was not received in the Municipal office. A supplementary list of voters was published on November 1, 1960, as provided in Sub-section (13A) of Section 19 of the Act. According to the petitioner, he learnt on November 10, 1960, that his name was not in the supplementary list. On November 11, he sent...
Tag this Judgment!