Air 1931 Bom 2 - Judgment Search Results
Ballappa Bhimappa and ors. Vs. Tippangowda Basangowda and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-25-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom256
47 undoubtedly applies to orders by the mamlatdar respecting possession of immovable property under the Mamlatdars' Courts Act. Bombay Act 2 of 1906 expressly constitutes Mamlatdars' Courts and defines their powers in Section 5; and, as that
Chandulal Madhavlal Vs. Maneklal Lalluram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom251
judgment apart, on general principles, as was observed by Macleod, C.J., in Ismailji v. Ismail Abdul A.I.R. 1921 Bom. 460, a Court can appoint a receiver of propertyoutside its jurisdiction and even in foreign territory and except … though not expressed, by his predecessor, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the suits were barred by limitation. 2. The plaintiff has applied in revision. 3. Our attention has been invited today to appeals on similar orders
Baburao Lakshman Nikam and ors. Vs. Tukaram Pundalika Powar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-26-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom208
the whole of the property inherited by Zinga, was valid. In the case of Tukaram v. Yesu A.I.R. 1931 Bom. 100 it was held that the gift of the whole or even of apart of the property inherited … A.I.R. 1927 Bora. 260, Fateh Singh Rukmini Ramanji Maharaj A.I.R. 1923 All. 387 and Ramakotayya v. Viraraghavayya : AIR1929Mad502 . In Basappa v. Fakirappa A.I.R. 1922 Bom. 102 it was held that a gift nude by a … plaintiffs as the stepsons of Anu are entitled to succeed to Murari. 2. It appears that on 23rd May 1921, the widow Zinga and her
18-section briefs on any result in this list
Anant Krishnaji Nulkar and ors. Vs. Secy. of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom238
who dismissed the suit. The first three issues raised were:(1) Whether the suit is barred by Section 11, Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act. (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he be came the owner of the land in
Vrijlal Mansukhram and ors. Vs. Chunilal Fatechand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom210
the provisions of Section 63 of the Act. 14. In Krishna Chinnoo & Sons v. Matubhai A.I.R. 1920 Bom. 107 the secured creditors in the leasehold property wore entitled to say that they wore unsecured creditors of … dividend by registered post according to form No. 11 at p. 359 of the Civil Circulars, and Rule 24, Clause (6), at p. 351 of the Civil Circulars and, that the individual notices not having been given,
Dattatraya Waman Rajguru Vs. Secretary of State
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-28-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom212
defendant restraining him from doing anything which would affect the rights of the plaintiffs in the kulkarni watans. 2. The defendant the Secretary of State denied the several allegations made in the plaint and contended that the … allegations made in the plaint and contended that the suits were barred under Section 4(a) and Section 11, Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act and were also barred under Articles 14, 44, 91 and 120, Lim. Act and raised
Gurlingappa Shivappa Masali and ors. Vs. Sabu Ramappa Kore
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom218
allowed and an ex-parte decree was obtained by defendant 1. 6. In Narayan v. Nathaji Durgaji [1908] 28 Bom. 201 it was held that the principle laid down in Pandurang Anandrav v. Bhaskar Shadashiv [1874] 11 B.H.C.R. … for a declaration that the decree obtained by defendant 1 against defendant 2 was a collusive decree on the ground that defendant 2 in order … plaint with regard to the setting aside of the decree. In Sheopujan Rai v. Kesho Prasad Singh : AIR1924Pat310 it was held that although an appellate Court will not ordinarily allow an amendment of the plaint whore
Lakshman Balwant Khisti Vs. Vasudeo Mohoniraj Pande
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom227
and Ramrao. It is argued for the appellant that he cannot as in Sidlingappa v. Hirasa [1907] 31 Bom. 405, where the defence was disallowed and the plaintiff's suit had been decreed.7. On the observations above in … 1. The question in this appeal is whether the plaintiff appellant is entitled to possession from defendant respondent 2. 2. In 1902 Ramrao and Shamrao were in difficulties and passed the sale deed of 22nd June 1902,
Dharwar Bank Ltd. Vs. Mahomed Hayat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-29-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom269
nature that if permitted it would defeat the provisions of the law; see Govind v. Pacheco [1902] 4 Bom. L.R. 948. The question was considered by this Court in Ramkrishna Trimbak v. Narayan [1915] 40 Bom. 126 … the plaintiff and that the bank had a charge on the shares for the debts of the deceased. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff proved that the shares in question belonged to him. On
Bai Mani and ors. Vs. Usafali Bhudar and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1930
Reported in: AIR1931Bom229; 136Ind.Cas.173
Mayukha, Ch. 5, Section 4, pl. 15. In the case of Durbar Khachar v. Khachar Harsur [1908] 32 Bom. 348 it was held that the son was not liable to pay the debt of his father which … the guardian of the minor appointed by the District Judge of Ahmedabad. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge passed a decree against the estate of the … father's debt. I may, in this connexion, refer to the case of Jagannath Prasad v. Jugal Kishori : AIR1926All89 . In the present case the plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the amount was misappropriated by Bhimashankar.
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›
AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free