Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-22-1940
Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR640
George Rankin, J.1. This appeal raises questions as to the true construction and effect of Section 20 of the Indian limitation Act (IX of 1908) as amended by the Indian Limitation Amendment Act (I of 1927), Conflicting decisions in India have made it desirable that their Lordships should construe the Section, and as in the present case the High Court has differed from the trial Court on the facts, the evidence must be examined.2. The plaintiff appellant Rama Shah is described as a banker and carries on a business at Jhelum which includes the lending of money. The defendant Lal Chand is a timber merchant of the same town who on various occasions between October 17, 1929, and July 17, 1931, took a loan from the plaintiff, giving to him a promissory note for the amount of the loan with interest at twelve per cent, per annum. Two small loans not covered by promissory notes were alleged by the plaintiff to have been made and were disputed by the defendant, but five promissory notes are admi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Dec-17-1940
Reported in : (1941)1MLJ644
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This Full Bench has been constituted to decide the following questions:(1) Where a manager of a Hindu religious institution makes an alienation of the property of the institution for valuable consideration and the succeeding manager seeks to impeach that alienation by suit, will Article 134-B apply when there is an interval of time between the death, resignation or removal of the previous manager and the election or appointment of the subsequent manager?(2) If such succeeding manager happens to be a minor at the date of his election or appointment, will he be entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Limitation Act?(3) If Article 144 be held applicable to the case, when does adverse possession commence? Is it from the date of the election or appointment of the succeeding manager or from, the date of the death, resignation or removal of the previous manager who effected the alienation?2. The reference arises out of Appeal No. 26 of 1937, which was pre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Decided on : Feb-22-1940
SIR GEORGE RANKIN: This appeal raises questions as to the true construction and effect of S. 20, Limitation Act (9 of 1908) as amended by the Limitation Amendment Act (1 of 1927). Conflicting decisions in India have made it desirable that their Lordships should construe the Section, and as in the present case the High Court has differed from the trial Court on the facts, the evidence must be examined. The plaintiff appellant Rama Shah is described as a banker and carries on a business at Jhelum which includes the lending of money. The defendant Lal Chand is a timber merchant of the same town who on various occasions between 17th October 1929, and 17th July 1931, took a loan from the plaintiff, giving to him a promissory note for the amount of the loan with interest at twelve percent. per annum. Two small loans not covered by promissory notes were alleged by the plaintiff to have been made and were disputed by the defendant, but five promissory notes are admitted by the defendant and a ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Sep-24-1940
Reported in : (1940)42BOMLR1193
Wassoodew, J.1. The petitioners Vishnu Tatyaba Naik and Shridhar Raoji Patil, who were respectively Sub-Overseer of the District Local Board, Nasik, and elected member of that Board and Chairman of the Works Committee, were prosecuted before the Resident First Class Magistrate of Manmad in the Nasik District for offences of cheating and falsification of accounts and abetment thereof, punishable under Section s 420 and 477A read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the accused had dishonestly taken false measurements of certain work of repairs on the KherdisathaNagarsul Road in the Yeola Taluka under their charge and fraudulently obtained from the President of the District Local Board Rs. 275-7-0 by tendering a bill with the measurement sheet containing the false measurements attached to it duly signed by accused No. 1 and countersigned by accused No. 2.2. The accused raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to try them on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Dec-03-1940
Reported in : AIR1941Bom337; (1941)43BOMLR576
Blackwell, J.1. This is a summons taken out by the applicants for an order that the attachment levied by the plaintiff on the property at Fergusson Road, Lower Parel, by the warrant of attachment dated September 13, 1939, be raised. This summons was adjourned into Court for taking evidence. In view, however, of the arguments of counsel, and in particular of what has been conceded by counsel for the plaintiff, evidence has not become necessary. The matter has been greatly shortened by the concessions made by the learned' counsel for the plaintiff.2. The defendants became the tenants of the applicants. The terms upon, which they became the tenants of the applicants are set out in the correspondence annexed to the affidavit of N.M. Bhagalia dated March 6, 1940. That correspondence amounting to an agreement to lease ought to have beem registered by reason of the definition of a lease in Section 2(3) of the Indian Registration Act and Section 17(2) (d). It was not registered. Notwithstandin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-16-1940
Reported in : (1942)2MLJ47
Abdur Rahman, J.1. This appeal arises out or a suit instituted by the present Raja of Kalahasti (Venkatalingamma by name) on the basis of a mortgage deed executed by his father the late Rajah of Kalahasti (Timma Nayanim Varu) in favour of his second wife Chinnamma for a sum of Rs. 63,000 on the 2nd January, 1913- Ex. Rules The late Rajah of Kalahasti whom it will be more convenient to refer in this judgment as Timma, died on the 5th December, 1919, after he had held the impartible estate of Kalahasti for about 14 years. Timma had two sons by his first wife Chellamma one of whom is the present plaintiff and the other was Akkappa.2. Akkappa was given in adoption by Timma to his elder brother Muddu Venkatappa who held the impartible estate of Kalahasti after the death of his father Venkatappa Nayanim Varu (commonly known as the C. S. I. Raja) up till the 22nd March, 1894. Muddu Venkatappa had, while he held the impartible estate, executed a mortgage in 1893 on some of the villages of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-04-1940
Reported in : AIR1940Mad602; (1940)2MLJ95
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The assessee company is a private company having been incorporated in British India in May 1933. The capital is Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 5,000 shares of Rs. 100 each and all the shares have been issued. The shareholders and their holdings are as follows : (i) the firm of A, and F. Harvey, 3,998 shares; (ii) the Madura Mills Company, Limited, 1,000 shares and the Comorin Investment and Trading Company, Limited, 2 shares. For the sake of brevity I will refer to the assessee company as 'the Company', to the firm of A and F. Harvey as 'the firm' and to the Madura Mills Company, Limited, as the 'Madura Mills'. The firm consists of three partners, namely, Mr. A. Harvey, Mr. J.C. Harvey and the Tuticorin Company, Limited, the shareholders of which are mostly certain employees of the firm. Mr. A. Harvey and Mr. J.C. Harvey are brothers. The profits of the firm are divisible between the partners in the following proportions : Mr. A. Harvey 63/128; Mr. J.C. Har...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Mar-04-1940
Reported in : [1940]8ITR307(Mad)
LEACH, C.J. - The assessee company is a private company having been incorporated in British India in May 1933. The capital is Rs. 5,00,000 divided into 5,000 shares of Rs. 100 each and all the shares have been issued. The shareholders and their holdings are as follows :-(i) The firm of A & F Harvey, 3,998 shares;(ii) The Madura Mills Company Limited, 1,000 shares and the Comorin Investment and Trading Company Limited, 2 shares. For the sake of brevity I will refer to the assessee company as 'the company', to the firm of A & F Harvey as 'the firm' and to the Madura Mills Company Limited as the 'Madura Mills'. The firm consists of three partners, namely, Mr. A. Harvey; Mr. J. C. Harvey and the Tuticorin Company Limited, the shareholders of which are mostly certain employees of the firm. Mr. A. Harvey and Mr. J. C. Harvey are brothers. The profits of the firm are divisible between the partners in the following proportions : Mr. A. Harvey 63/128; Mr. J. C. Harvey 63/128 and the Tuticorin C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Feb-15-1940
Reported in : AIR1940Cal281
Narsing Rau, J.1. The petitioners executed a usufructuary mortgage of certain occupancy holdings in favour of the predecessor in interest of the opposite parties on 5th March 1923 by way of security for a loan of Rupees 1750, the stipulation being that the mortgagee should enjoy the usufruct in lieu of interest. The deed was registered on 6th March 1923. On 10th March 1939 they applied to the Munsiff of the second Court at Contai under Section 26G, Ben. Ten. Act, to be restored to possession of the holdings, more than fifteen years having elapsed since the registration of the mortgage. The Munsiff dismissed the application of 12th July 1939. The present rule is directed against this order. Sub-section (5) of Section 26G, under which the application was made, runs thus:Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law or in any contract, the consideration (with all interest thereon) for a complete usufructuary mortgage or for another form of usufructuary mortgage deemed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jul-09-1940
Reported in : AIR1941Cal33
Biswas, J.1. This is an appeal on behalf of some of the defendants in an action of ejectment on declaration of the plaintiffs' title. The learned Munsif who tried the suit declared the plaintiffs' title as landlords, but dismissed the claim for ejectment on the ground that the suit had not been properly constituted. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision, and decreed the suit in full. The defendants were directed to remove the huts and structures from the lands within three months, failing which the plaintiffs were given liberty to take khas possession on removal of the same at the cost of the defendants. Hence the present appeal by four of defendants, 1 to 4, the other contesting defendant 5 and pro forma defendant 6 being joined as respondents. The defence to the suit was mainly two-fold : first that the suit was defective for want of parties in so far as the entire body of cosharer landlords had not been represented, and secondly that the tenancy was a kayemi...
Tag this Judgment!