Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom266; ILR1961Bom68
Mudholkar, J.1. All these appeals except First Appeal No. 128 of 1953 arise out of a suit instituted by the Plaintiff Shankarrao fagainst fifteen persons for partition and separate possession of certain properly alleged by him to be the joint family property of his adoptive father Sitaram and of Gopala, the adoptive father of the Defendant No. 4 Sheshrao. The Plaintiffs Nos, 2 and 3 are the alienees of some of the properties from the Plaintiff No. 1. During the pendency of the suit some of the Defendants were given up and their names have been struck off. They are Defendants No. 9 Pandurang, No. 11 Parashramji, No. 12 Balkrishna and No. 14 Mst. Yashwadabai. Four persons were also joined as Defendants to the suit. They are Defendants No. 16 Vinayak, No. 17 Sadasheo, No. 18 Rajaram and No. 19 Bhagwan.2. The following genealogical tree will explain the contentions which have been raised onbehalf of the Defendant No. 4 Sheshrao and the Defendant No. 7 Waman, who are the main contestants to...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom96; (1960)62BOMLR945; ILR1961Bom455
ORDER1. This application has been filed by the defendant against an order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mangaon, directing the application made by the plaintiff for restoring the plaint that was already rejected by the Court to file 'to proceed further',2. The plaintiff, it appears, had filed the suit being regular Civil Suit No. 62 of 1957 for the purpose of recovering a certain sum of money from the defendant found due at the foot of a certain account This suit was filed on 10th October 1937. On 11th March 1938, the Court passed an order calling upon the plaintiff to clarify (1) how the cause of action arose on 10-10-1954? (2) how the claim was in time? and (3) how and at what rate and on what amount the interest was charged? The order further stated that in case the plaintiff failed to do so within a week the plaint shall be rejected. It appears, however, that the plaintiff either deliberately or through oversight failed to furnish the necessary particulars whi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom112; (1960)62BOMLR985; ILR1961Bom219
ORDER1. This application is directed against the order passed by the learned Judge of the Small Causes Court at Bombay in suit No. 2357/12520 of 1956 whereby the suit was dismissed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.2. The plaintiffs, who are the applicants before me, filed the suit against the defendants for a declaration that the property attached and mentioned in Ex. C to the plaint belonged to and was in the possession of the plaintiffs on the date of the attachment and that the said property was not liable to be attached in execution of the defendants' decree against Messrs, Raghunathrai Shrinivas, and claiming return of the said property to the plaintiffs or in the alternative its value i.e. Rs. 1100/- from the defendants or in the further alternative claiming the said sum as and by way of damages from the defendants. It appears that the defendants had obtained a decree in the Bombay City Civil Court against Messrs. Raghunathrai Shrinivas for a sura ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR936
H.K. Chainani, C.J.1. These six applications arise out of six suits filed by landlords after August 1, 1956, for recovering arrears of rent for the period prior to August 1, 1956, from their tenants. In all these suits, it has been held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction; and that the Only authority, which can make orders for the payment of rent; is the Mamlatdar under Section 70(me) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The correctness of this view has been challenged before us.2. In order to decide the question, which arises, fox consideration in, these applications, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act as they stood before August 1, 1956, and as they stand at present. I will first refer to the provisions of the Act, which were in force prior to August 1, 1956. Section 6 prescribed the maximum rent, which a landlord could recover. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 provided that the maximum rent payable by a tenant, in the case of an irrigated la...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR982
S.M. Shah, J.1. This revision application is directed against the order passed by the learned Munsiff at Sillod, dismissing the debtors' application under Section 4 read with Section 24 of the Hyderabad Agricultural Debtors Relief Act. The debtors made an application for a declaration that the transfer of survey No. 41 situated at Mohal, Taluka Sillod, which was effected by a sale-deed was really in the nature of a mortgage. To this application the purchaser Bhikaji was made a party opponent and one Rangoo, who was in possession of the land, was also joined as party to the application. It was contended for the debtors that they had alienated the suit land on 5th Tir 1346 Fasli to opponent No. 1 by a registered sale-deed, but that on the next day opponent No. 1 had executed one bond promising to return the land on payment of Rs. 2,000. Opponent No. 2 was made a party to the application because according to the debtors there was a partition between opponents Nos. 1 and 2 and the land in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR940
S.M. Shah, J.1. Two very interesting questions of law have arisen on this application, firstly, as to whether a person who having been a tenant of an agricultural land under the Bombay Tenancy Act, becomes the purchaser thereof by virtue of Section 32 of that Act, can be said to be claiming through or under the owner-transferor of that land so that a charge on that land declared by a decree of a Court to the extent of the amount of earnest paid by a person to the owner of that land under an agreement of sale can be enforced against that land in the hands of the tenant-purchaser, and secondly, as to whether the transfer of such land to the tenant under the provisions of the Tenancy Act during the pendency of a suit filed by a person to whom that land was agreed to be sold for a declaration of a charge on that land to the extent of the earnest money paid by him to the owner of that land and recovery of that amount is hit by the doctrine of Us pendens so that the transfer to the tenant wo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom221; (1961)63BOMLR58; ILR1961Bom214
1. This is an application filed by the plaintiff against the order of the learned District Judge in an appeal filed by the defendant against the decree passed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff who filed the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 144/- from the defendant alleged that under a compromise decree passed in a prior suit between the panics the defendant had made herself liable to pay over to the plaintiff all the income that was derived from the property in suit. The defendant, whose title to that property was declared in that compromise decree, resisted the plaintiff's suit on several grounds. The trial Court decided all the issues that were raised in the case in favour of the plaintiff and passed a decree for the amount that was claimed in the suit. It may be noted, however, that this suit was filed originally in the Small Causes Court at Sholapur, but later on by a Purshis signed by the pleaders of both the parties the suit was registered and tried as a re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1962Bom249; (1961)63BOMLR897
ORDER(1) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an order dated May 15, 1959 whereby the 1st Respondent as Additional Collector of Customs ordered 52 cases of wired glass belonging to the petitioners to be confiscated under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947.(2) The relevant facts are as follows:-The petitioners are a partnership firm carrying on business as importers and dealers in glass. By a contract dated march 31, 1958 the petitioners agreed to purchase from Messrs. B. H. Mehta and co., 140 cases of wired glass on the terms and conditions recorded in the contract. Rs. 25,000/- were agreed to be paid as advance and were paid on March 31st, 1958. The contract was a forward contract and the shipment was 'end of July 1958'. In the first week of September 1958 the 52 cases of the goods arrived at Bombay per S. S. Byton. The bill of lading in respect of the goods was in fav...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1960)62BOMLR933
S.M. Shah, J.1. This appeal is filed by one Saraswatibai widow of Chimanrao Yadav as the guardian and next friend of her minor son Prakash Chimanrao Yadav against the respondents who claim to be the illegitimate sons ofGanpatrao Yadav and is directed against an order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Poona, dismissing her application for setting aside an ex parte decree which was passed against the minor in the suit filed by the respondents. It appears that respondent No. 1 in this appeal had filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No. 124 of 1952 against the minor Prakash making respondent No. 2 a party defendant claiming that he and defendant No. 2 were the two illegitimate sons of Ganpatrao, that Ganpatrao had gifted the lands in suit in their favour by a registered deed and that, therefore, they were entitled to the possession of the suit lands from the minor Prakash. In this suit, it appears, the plaintiff had applied that one Vikram alleged to be the materna...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1961Bom111; (1960)62BOMLR980; ILR1961Bom438
Chainani, C.J.1. The petitioner had appealed to the State Transport Authority against the order cancelling the countersignature on his public carrier permit. The Authority came to the conclusion that the appeal was not competent. The correctness of this view is being challenged before us.2. The Question turns on the interpretation of Sub-section (3) of Section 63, and Clauses (a), (b) and (d) of Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sections 63 and 64 are contained in Chapter IV of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 63 provides that 'the provisions of this Chapter relating to the grant revocation and suspension of permits shall apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits'. This sub-section therefore makes the provisions of the whole of Chapter IV, including Section 64, relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits applicable to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures of permits. Clauses (a), (b) and (d) of Section 64 ar...
Tag this Judgment!