Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR295
Divatia, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for a declaration that the suit property consisting of land with buildings thereon was of the absolute ownership of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2, and for an injunction restraining defendant No. 1, the Government represented by the Secretary of State for India in Council, from taking vacant possession of the land after removal of the superstructures. An alternative relief was also prayed that if it be held that the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 were in possession of the land under a lease of ninety-nine years, the Government should fix a reasonable amount for rent after the expiry of the lease but not take forcible possession of the same.2. The land in suit is situated in a prominent locality in the city of Ahmed-abad. Its present survey number is 4663 corresponding to old city survey Nos. 123 and 235 of L. Tikka No. 3 in the Raikhad ward of Ahmedabad city. Its area is 642 square yards. The plaintiffs' case in substance was that this lan...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR27
John Beaumont, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the Court has to consider a certificate given by the learned Advocate General under Clause 26 of the Letters Patent. Under that clause, if the Advocate General certifies that there is a point of law involved in the case which requires further consideration, this Court has to determine the point of law, and, if it thinks that there has been an error in law, can review the whole case and pass the requisite judgment and sentence.2. There is no doubt in this case that there was an error of law in relation to the use which the learned Judge made of statements of witnesses made before the police. We will deal with that more in detail in a moment. But the existence of that error, which is admitted by Mr. Velinker for the Crown, requires us to review the whole case. It is not essential, whenever there has been some error of law, to set aside the conviction, but undoubtedly we must) set aside the conviction, if we think; that the error of law has prejudic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1942Mad307; (1942)1MLJ166
Abdur Rahman, J.1. The main question to decide in the appeal relates to the plaintiff's claim for setting off the arrears of the rent due to him by the defendants against the value of improvements found to be payable by the former to the latter. A decree was secured by the plaintiff Dewaswom in regard to the arrears of rent but it has become barred by limitation.2. The properties in suit including certain other items of property, sixty-three in all, belong to the plaintiff Dewaswom. They were demised by it on a kanom of Rs. 116 to defendants 1 to 55, who were members of a tarwad, for a period of five years so far as paddy lands were concerned and for a period of twelve years in respect of parambas. It appears that a Kuzhikanom deed was executed by the plaintiff Dewaswom on the 26th February, 1917 in favour of one V. Krishnan Nair who was then Karnavan of the defendants' tarwad. Since he died without executing a corresponding marupat, the marupat on the basis of which the present suit w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1942Mad614; (1942)1MLJ137
Mockett, J.1. It is unnecessary to set out the complicated facts which are the basis of the suit, the subject of this civil revision petition. The following statement of the essential facts is sufficient. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 55 of 1932 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly against the defendants, who both reside in Rangoon. The prayer in the plaint is as follows:(a) For a decree directing the defendants to deliver the properties' in Schedule 0, Parts I, II and III, together with profits from date of suit;' and declaring that the plaintiff is solely and absolutely entitled to the assets described in Schedule C, Part IV.(b) In case the plaintiff is held not entitled to that relief, for a decree directing the division, of the properties in Schedules A, B and C into one fourth, three-eighths and three-eighths shares allotting Schedules A and B to the plaintiff and charity and adding so much property from Schedule 0 as may be necessary to make them a just moiety of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1943Cal35
Pal, J.1. This rule was issued by this Court calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta as also upon the opposite parties to show cause why the order complained of in the petition should not be set aside on grounds 1, 2 and 8 of the petition. The opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared and showed cause. The petitioner is the owner of the premises No. 17 Ezra Street, Calcutta. On the east of these premises lie the premises No. 16, Ezra Street which along with several other plots were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the Calcutta Improvement Trust, as per Notification No. 16268 L.A., dated 28th November 1936 published in the Calcutta Gazette on 3rd December 1936. On 18th August 1941, the present petitioner made a petition to the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, naming the opposite party 1 Jiwandas Khemji alone as opposite party and alleging, (1) that on the eastern wall of the petitioner's premises there were six windows on each storey (altogether 18 in number) w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR251
Chagla, J.1. This is a chamber summons taken out by the defendants for setting aside an ex parte order made by Mr. Justice Kania on July 28, 1941,. and for setting aside the service of the writ of summons effected pursuant to the said Judge's order upon the defendants as representing all other members of the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Employees' Mutual Benefit Society.2. The suit is filed by the plaintiff, who is an attorney of this Court, for damages for wrongful termination of his services by the Great Indian Peninsula Railway Employees' Mutual Benefit Society. The object of this society, as apparent from the rules which have been put in, is to provide any member of the society with legal assistance for his defence in the event of his being prosecuted for an offence or offences, under the Indian Railways Act or the Indian Penal Code, alleged to have been committed by him and arising out of and in the discharge of his duties, or of actions believed to be within the scope of his du...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR175
Chagla, J.1. This is a petition to set aside an award made by Maneklal Ujamsey and Sakalchand G. Shah on October 13, 1941.2. Mr. Engineer who appears for the respondents takes a preliminary objection to the petition that as the award made by these arbitrators has not been filed, the petition does not lie. Mr. Daphtary for the petitioners argues that before the passing of Act X of 1940 it was competent to a party to a submission to take proceedings in Court to have the award set aside before the award was actually filed under the Indian Arbitration Act, and he contends that that right which a party had has not been taken away by the consolidating Act of 1940. He further relies on the language of Section 31, Sub-section (3), which provides that all applications regarding the conduct of arbitration proceedings or otherwise arising out of such proceedings shall be made to the Court where the award has been, or may be, filed, and to no other Court. Mr. Daphtary's contention is that he is ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1942)44BOMLR171
Chagla, J.1. On March 18, 1940, the insolvents were adjudicated insolvents by this Court on the petition of Messrs. Gobindmal Dhajanchand, creditors.2. It seems that Kallianchand and Sobhagchand were two brothers, and in or about the year 1880 started business as commission agents and jewellery merchants in the name of Kallianchand Sobhagchand. In 1900 Sobhagchand died, and Kallianchand carried on the business. Kallianchand had two sons, Amarchand and Balubhai. Kallianchand died in 1915 and his sons carried on the business. Amarchand died in 1932 leaving behind him three sons, Uttamchand, Shantichand and Gulabchand. The firm of Kallianchand Sobhagchand had dealings with Gordhandas Ranchoddas Bhagat and deposited, to secure the indebtedness of the firm, the title-deeds of the properties situate at Surat, Poona and Bovril by way of equitable mortgage. The Official Assignee has admitted the claim of Gordhandas Ranchoddas Bhagat against the firm.3. The insolvents are Balubhai, the son of K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1942Bom305; (1942)44BOMLR673
Divatia, J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree of the appellate Judge dismissing his suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing him in passing through their open site while coming out from his house and also from obstructing the passage of the water of his bath room through the said open site. The facts found are that the plaintiff is a purchaser in a Court-sale of a house belonging to defendant No. 1, who is the main contestant in the suit and whom I will, therefore, call the defendant. At the time when the property was purchased by the plaintiff there was a door in the southern wall of that house from which there was an access to an open piece of land belonging to the defendant through which there was a way to go towards the west. There was also an outlet; in the southern wall for passage of the water of the house into that open piece of land. The plaintiff claimed the right of way through the door and the right to discharge water...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1942Cal418
Pal, J.1. These three appeals are under Section 142, Calcutta Municipal Act. The Appeal No. 166 of 1940 relates to the valuation of the premises No. 6/1 Wellesley Place constituting the stables attached to the Government House. It consists of 1 bigha 10 cottas and 9 chataks and 33 Sq. Ft. of land and of buildings comprising 54 horse stables 14 syces quarters and 2 quarters used by Police Sergeants. In 1931, the Corporation of Calcutta valued the premises as follows:Lands at Rs. 10,000 per cotta ... Rs. 306,083Building... ... ... Rs. 113,198--------------Rs. 419,281Annual value ... ... Rs. 20,9642. This valuation was based on the appellant's own return under Section 136, Municipal Act, (Exs. D, E, la). In this return the Executive Engineer, First Calcutta Division, gave the value of the land as Rs. 306,083 calculating the same at Rs. 10,000 per cotta and returned Rs. 109,802 as the estimated present cost of erecting the building. The present valuation was made in 1937 as follows:Land at...
Tag this Judgment!