Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1941Bom312; (1941)43BOMLR562
Kania, J.1. The South Indian Education Society was registered in 1932 under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860. The memorandum of association, the rules and the by-laws of the society were duly registered in accordance with the Act. The memorandum defines the objects. The society was founded mainly to promote the education of the boys and girls of Southern India and with that object in view it thought of erecting a building to house the school. Not having sufficient funds on hand schemes were suggested to borrow money. It was suggested that debentures should be issued. To find out if that scheme would be workable several persons were approached and they expressed their willingness to subscribe. When it came to payment, however, the response on the whole being unsatisfactory, there occurred a divergence of opinion. The plaintiff who was a member of the society and who took part in getting promises to subscribe the debentures resigned in January, 1936. On July 26, 1936, a general...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1939)41BOMLR45
Somjee, J.1. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of a certain design for printing saries. The certificate of registration of the design with a specimen print on a piece of voil is exhibit A. The design consists of a border and, what has been at this trial called, the body or the background of the sari. The design was registered under the Indian Patents and Designs Act (II of 1911) and therefore the plaintiffs have the exclusive right to the use of the design for printing textile goods and selling the same in British India.2.The plaintiffs' case is that the defendants imported into Bombay ten cases of Japanese prints for sale in Bombay, the border of which is identical with or a fraudulent or obvious imitation of the plaintiffs' registered design and that the defendants applied the design to the goods contained in the ten cases without the licence or consent of the plaintiffs and were publishing or exposing or causing to be published or exposed for sale and selling the goods.3...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad137; 61Ind.Cas.461; (1921)40MLJ25
John Wallis, C.J.1. This case raised questions of some importance under the Transfer of Property Act as to the transfer of mortgages and of actionable claims by way of gift, and we have taken time to consider our judgment.2. The facts may be very briefly stated. A few days before his death one Pothi Naicker executed Exhibit-50, an unregistered instrument by which he made an immediate disposition of property consisting of mortgages, promissory notes, and book-debts allotting the items in Schedule I to the defendants, the sons of a deceased son, and the items in Schedule 2 to the plaintiff, the daughter and only surviving child of another deceased son. It is not disputed that this disposition in the deed was intended to take effect at once. Exhibit 50 recites this, and is borne out by the oral evidence of the plaintiff's mother, the 1st witness for the defence in Original Suit No. 26 of 1917 which was tried along with the present suit, that the promissory notes and mortgage deeds mention...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1944All188a
Allsop, J.1. We have before us four connected appeals, namely, First Appeals Nos. 95 and 124 of 1941 arising out of suit No. 120 of 1937 in the Court of the Civil Judge of Dehra Dun and First Appeals Nos. 96 and 125 of 1941 arising out of suit No. 389 of 1938 in the same Court. The parties were the same in the two suits. First Appeals Nos. 95 and 96 have been instituted by the defendants and First Appeals Nos. 124 and 125 by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed damages in the two suits upon the ground that the defendants had cut down a number of trees in the forest of Guljwari, the property of the plaintiffs, and that they had been guilty of certain breaches of an agreement or lease which was evidenced by a document executed by the plaintiffs, Joti Prasad and Jugal Kishore, on 10th September 1935. In this document Joti Prasad and Jugal Kishore are described as the first party and the defendants, Shaikh Ahmad AH, Nur Ahmad Niyaz Ahmad and Benarsi Das are described as the second party....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1936Mad205; (1936)70MLJ162
Cornish, J.1. The facts out of which this Reference arises can be briefly stated. In execution of a decree against the sole defendant in a suit the decree-holder attached certain lands of the judgment-debtor and brought them to sale.2. The sale was fixed for 15th September, 1927 and took place on 16th September, 1927 and the property was knocked down to the bid of the present appellant. But in the meantime the judgment-debtor had died on 8th September, 1927. His sons, the Respondents to this appeal, put in a petition under Section 47 and Order 21, Rule 90 to have the sale set aside. In the affidavit supporting this petition it is alleged that the decree-holder, notwithstanding that he and his vakil were aware of the judgment-debtor's death before the date of the sale, took no steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased judgment-debtor. It is true that no application was made under Section 50 Civil Procedure Code for leave to execute the decree against the legal r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1925)27BOMLR787
Lawrence Jenkins, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the Chief Court of Lower Burma, dated May 23, 1919, varying two decrees of that Court in its original jurisdiction, one dated February 28, 1917, in suit No. 62 of 1916, and the other, dated March 15, 1917, in suit No. 60 of 1916.2. Both suits were bought by Baijnath Singh for the redemption of shares alleged to have been mortgaged by him.3. Suit No. 60 of 1916, is against Hajee Vally Mahomed Hajee Abba. Suit No. 62 of 1916, was originally against Hajee Mahomed Jamal, but the plaint was amended by adding the defendant Abdul Kareem Abdul Shakoor Jamal. Later, dur- the pendency of the suit, Hajee Vally Mahomed Hajee Abba was substituted as defendant in their place, and he is now the sole defendant in both suits.4. The plaintiff's right to redeem is denied on the ground that the several transactions on which the plaintiff relies were not mortgages, but sales with a right of repurchase that has expired.5. The trial Ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1921Mad98; (1921)40MLJ153
Abdur Rahim, J.1. This second appeal arises in a suit instituted by the plaintiffs against defendants 1 and 2, two minors represented in the suit by their mother as guardian adlitem for a declaration that the suit partnership was dissolved, for the taking of the partnership accounts and for other ancillary reliefs. It is necessary to state shortly the history of the case in order to understand the questions that arise in the appeal. The first plaintiff's father Narasimhulu, and the 1st and second defendants' father Amarayya, and another person called Guravayya carried on business in partnership from before 1887. Guravayya died in 1887; and the business was carried on by his brother Gopalan taking his place. Gopalan retired from the business after settling accounts on 15th November, 1887.2. Then Narasimhulu who is the father of the first plaintiff continued the business along with the father of the defendants down to 12th November, 1S9S when Narasimhulu died. On his death, the first pla...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1923Bom218; 76Ind.Cas.317
Marten, J.1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the order of Mr. Justice Shah, dated 13th December 1921, dismissing the defendants' appeal against the order of the District Judge of Poona who directed the Subordinate Judge of Vadgaon to proceed with the execution of the decree under Darkhast. No. 29 of 1919.2. The question is one of limitation and concerns, primarily, Section 14, Sub-section (2) and Article 182(5) of the Indian Limitation Act. To explain it, I will state shortly the material facts. The suit was an ejectment suit brought in 1906, and on the 27th November 1907 the plaintiff obtained a decree for possession in the Vadgaon Court. I understand from Counsel that the plaintiff has now recovered possession of all the suit land except a particular cottage, and that the present Darkhast relates only to that cottage. Be that as it may, there have been numerous Darkhasts since the original decree, but it is unnecessary to mention them all. It is common ground that the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1930Mad218; (1930)58MLJ210
Cornish, J.1. This appeal raises the question whether a suit to recover money due on promissory notes against the defendants who are the sons, widows and a daughter of the deceased executant of the notes is barred by limitation.2. It appears that the two notes in question were executed by one Hajee Imamuddin on the 10th January, 1917 and on the 21st February, 1918, for Rs. 1,600 and Rs. 300, respectively. Imamuddin died in 1919. The plaintiff filed his suit against the defendants on 4th September, 1923, to recover the amount due on the notes. The suit was, therefore, out of time unless, in the meanwhile, there had been an effectual acknowledgment of the liability so as to give a fresh starting point for limitation. It is alleged by the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, that such an acknowledgment is to be found in a petition filed in this Court on the 9th October, 1919, for a grant of letters of administration, by defendants 1, 2 and 3, of whom defendants 1 and 2 are sons and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1926Mad728
ORDERPhillips, J.1. In this case there are two houses, Nos. 19 and 20, adjoining one another and apparently they both originally belonged to the same family. For many years past, and certainly for 20 years, the inhabitants of No. 20 have been using a privy situated in No. 19 and for that purpose have been enjoying the right of way over portions of No. 19. The plaintiff in this case originally brought a suit in 1917 for recovery of house No. 19, but that suit was dismissed. He has now brought the present suit for a declaration that he is absolutely entitled to the latrine marked 'C' in the plan and to the use thereof, and, in alternative, as a right of easement. Although the plaintiff's suit to recover house No. 19 has been dismissed, yet, in his plaint, he persists in asserting his right to it inclusive of the latrine marked 'C', and he pleads in the alternative that he is entitled to the use of the latter as an easement. The learned City Civil Judge has found that this right has been ...
Tag this Judgment!