Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal563
Suhrawardy, J.1. In these applications in revision the petitioner, the Official Receiver, prays that the decrees passed by the Special Judge of Tipperah, dated 23rd August 1921, in two settlement appeals be amended in the way suggested. The petitioner made several applications before the settlement officer under Section 105, Ben. Ten. Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent, but we are concerned with only two of those cases. As the decision in one case will govern the other I will deal with Settlement Case No. 2237 of 1919 in which 110 khatians wore involved. The defence of the tenants was that their holdings were mukarrari and that the rents were not liable to be enhanced, either under Section 52 of the Act, on account of increase in area, or under Section 30-B for increase in the price of the staple food-crops. The assistant settlement officer allowed enhancement of rent in some cases under Section 52 which was not challenged in the appeals and we are not concerned with it at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom71; (1931)33BOMLR1500
John Beaumont, C.J.1. This is a petition presented by Mr. Tara-porewala as acting Advocate General in which he asks the Court to give directions as to the right of pre-audience in this Court of the acting Advocate General. Mr. Coltman has appeared for the Bar Association, and Sir Chimanlal Setalvad for the Bar Council, and though the matter has not been contested in any hostile spirit, they have been good enough to put forward the argument against the view of the acting Advocate General.2. The petition has annexed to it a copy of a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court given in October 1865. In that case it was conceded that prior to the Government of India Act of 1858 no right of pre-audience at the bar was enjoyed by the Advocate General, and, therefore, a fortiori no such right was enjoyed by the acting Advocate General. But of course before the Act of 1858 the Advocate General was the servant of the East India Company, and not of the Crown. The Court in the case to which I am ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom604; (1932)34BOMLR1365
Wadia, J.1. One Haji Gulam Mahomed Ajam died in Bombay on or about March 1, 1928, leaving him surviving as his only heirs, according to the Sunni Mahomedan law, a widow, two sons and three daughters. He left a will dated January 9, 1928, of which he appointed his widow and one of his daughters his executrices. The will, however, has not been proved. The deceased died possessed of moveable and immovable properties of large value in Bombay and in other places. The first suit is a suit for the administration of his estate. The second suit is a mortgage suit filed by the Central Bank of India, Ltd., for the realisation of their security. The deceased was indebted to various creditors at the date of his death, the largest of whom are the Central Bank, Mr. F.E. Dinshaw and Ratanji Virpal, all secured creditors. This summons has been taken out by the executriees of his will, firstly for an order that they may be authorised to obtain from the bank a sum sufficient to pay off the claim of Mr. F...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Privy Council
Lord Blanesburgh: This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated 13th November 1924, reversing a judgment and order dated 3rd November 1922, of a single Judge of the same High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. These orders were made in the matter of a petition presented to the Court on 1st May 1922, for the compulsory winding-up of the appellant company. By the order of 3rd November 1922, Kumaraswami Sastri, J., dismissed the petition with costs. On appeal his order was discharged by that of 13th November 1924, and the compulsory winding-up of the company was thereby decreed. This appeal from that order reached the Board for hearing more than six years after it had been made. Its discharge accordingly involved the supersession of all proceedings in a liquidation which as a result of it had then been in operation for more than eight years. To this fact are attributable the grave difficulties which have confronted the Board ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1932)34BOMLR321
Blanesburgh, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, dated November 13, 1924, reversing a judgment and order dated November 3, 192?, of a single Judge of the same High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. These orders were made in the matter of a petition presented to the Court on May 1,1922, for the compulsory winding-up of the appellant company. By the order1 of November 3, 1922, Mr. Justice KumarswamiSastri dismissed the petition with costs. On appeal his order was discharged by that of November 18, 1924, and the compulsory winding-up of the company was thereby decreed. This appeal from that order reached the Board for hearing more than six years after it had been made, Its discharge accordingly involved the supersession of all proceedings in a liquidation which as a result of it had then been in operation for more than eight years. To this fact are attributable the grave difficulties which have confronted the Board ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1932Cal589,140Ind.Cas.662
1. (F.A. No. 144 of 1928.) Defendant 10 is the appellant in this appeal, which arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiff for enforcement of a mortgage against defendants 1 to 7 who are the heirs of the mortgagor one Khetra Prasad Banerjee deceased, and in which defendants 8 to 12 were impleaded as defendants as being subsequent transferees. The plaintiff's case was that on 24th May 1923, Kshetra borrowed Its. 15,000 from him by executing a hand-note in his favour agreeing to pay inter-oat thereon at the rate of 1 per cent per month and that by way of security for the repayment of the said sum together with interest he, at the same time, deposited with the plaintiff the title-deeds relating to some immovable properties. The property concerned in this appeal is one of those properties and is premises No. 76, Barrackpore Trunk Road, The case of defendant 10 was that on 19th March 1924 Kshetra borrowed from defendant 10 a sum of Rs. 20,000 agreeing to pay interest thereon at the rat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1932Mad55; (1932)63MLJ962
Vepa Ramesam, Kt., Offg., C.J.1. These are appeals against the award of the District Judge of Salem made in certain land acquisition proceedings which vvere taken pursuant to the Town Planning Act (VII of 1^20). The scheme was generally known as Maravaneri Extension and was intended to enlarge the accommodation of Salem Town. The facts of the case may now be stated.2. On 1st February, 1921, the Madras Government invited the Municipal Council of Salem by a notification published in the Fort St. George Gazette to submit for their sanction within three months from the date of the publication of the notification a scheme in respect of the area now in question (Ex. A). This was under Section 12 of the Town Planning Act. That section authorises the Government to fix a date within which the Municipal Council should submit the scheme and the Government fixed three 'months as the period. The Salem Municipal Council did not submit their scheme within three months. The draft scheme was submitted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1932Mad583; (1932)62MLJ154
Venkatusubba Rao, J.1. The suit was dismissed by the Lower Court on the ground that the plaintiff was not competent to maintain the action in the absence of his brother as a party on the record and that when, on this defect having been pointed out, he applied to have his brother impleaded, the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff attacks the correctness of this decree, The suit was filed on the 14th of February, 1920, and its nature may be thus shortly described. The defendants sold to the plaintiff and his brother, by a conveyance, dated 17th February, 1917, certain villages including Penjendra, the suit village. The price of the village in question was fixed at 29 times its net income, which was stated at the time of the contract to be a certain amount. The plaintiff, however, discovered later, that the amount of the income had been overstated and that certain other fraudulent representations had been made. He goes on to allege, that in a partition entered into subsequently b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom130; (1932)34BOMLR92; 137Ind.Cas.881
Tyabji, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for a perpetual injunction against the defendant not to pass dirty water on the plaintiff's site, and for an order to close the 'mori' more particularly referred to in the plaint. Both the lower Courts have decided against the plaintiff. Their decisions amount to a finding that the defendant has proved that he has the right to pass the water, as he has been doing.2. It is not in dispute that such a right falls within the definition of an easement in Section 4 of the Indian Easements Act.3. The lower Courts have also found that the defendant cannot bring himself within the terms of Section 15 of the Indian Easements Act (V of 1882) which, so far as relevant, is to the effect that where any easement has been peaceably and openly enjoyed by any person claiming title thereto, as an easement, and as of right, without interruption, and for twenty years, the right to such easement shall be absolute; provided that the said period of twenty years sh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : AIR1932Bom175; (1932)34BOMLR125
Tyabji, J.1. The facts of this case attract attention by their naivete.2. There was an agreement between the first plaintiff and the first defendant. By it the first defendant was to transfer to the first plaintiff certain property, which I shall ca11 property A; and the first plaintiff was to cause a third person to transfer to the first defendant the property, which I shall call property B. At least, it was assumed before me that the Latter is the effect to be given to the third clause of Exhibit 31.3. The first defendant carried out his part of the contract to the extent that the property A was conveyed to the plaintiff by a conveyance made on April 13, 1919. The plaintiff did not obtain possession : the present suit was brought on June 19, 1925,-more than six years alter the conveyance-not for possession, but for a declaration under 8. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, that the first plaintiff had become entitled to property A.4. The first and obvious objection to this suit would appe...
Tag this Judgment!