Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1945)47BOMLR571
Atkin, J.1. This is an appeal from the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal which reversed the judgment of the District Judge at Pabna on an application by the respondents for the revocation of the probate of a will of an alleged testator Haralal Saha, which had been obtained by his widow, who is the appellant, in the year 1933.2. The circumstances were that Haralal Saha was a man of some age and had been very successful in his business, which was principally that of a moneylender. He owned immovable property in several districts in Bengal and in one district outside. He died in 1927 and, upon his death, there can be no doubt, that his three sons who survived him took possession of the properties. In some instances they had joined in a suit with their mother and were substituted for their father in a partition suit. They got a certificate of succession to enable them to sue on certain debts which were due, no doubt, on the moneylending business. They collected the rents o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1943All321
Verma, J.1. This appeal arises out of proceedings under the United Provinces Encumbered Estates Act (25 of 1934), in which the appellant, Qazi Ghulam Amir, was the landlord-applicant under Section 4 of the Act. In order that the questions that arise for decision may become clear, it is necessary to mention certain names and facts. The appellant's wife is Mt. Razia Khatun, who is respondent 8 in this appeal. They had a son, Ghulam Nazir, who was a Munsif. Ghulam Nazir first married Mt. Masuda Khatun, respondent 1, and had by her three daughters, Zhakia Khatun, Rafaat Khatun and Shaukat Khatun, who are respondents 2 to 4 in this appeal. He subsequently married Mt. Rashida Khatun, who is respondent 5, and had by her two sons, Hasan Amir and Ali Amir, who are respondents 6 and 7. On 30th November 1932, respondent l, Mt. Masuda, instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Budaun Suit No. 40 of 1932 against her husband, Ghulam Nazir, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,500 on account...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1945Cal6
ORDERDas, J.1. The suit in which the present application has been made was filed in 1937 by the plaintiff against the defendant, Pradyumna alone on a mortgage by deposit of title deeds praying for an account and sale of the mortgaged properties and other incidental reliefs. The sum secured was Rs. 79,273-14-0 with interest thereon. How this odd sum was arrived at does not appear from the papers before me. It may be, and this is only a surmise, that it was arrived at as a result of adjustment of previous dealings. The rate of interest agreed upon between the parties was 9 per cent, per annum which is in excess of the rate which has since been specified in the Bengal Money-Lenders Act 1940. The mortgaged properties were 2A Nanda Lal Mullick Lane, portion of 64A Upper Chitpur Road, (which may; be hereafter called Calcutta properties) and Premises Nos. 10/1, 11, 11/1-, 11/2, 11/3, 11/4 and 11/5 Cossipore Road which may hereafter be collectively called the Cossipore properties. Shortly afte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1942Mad223; (1941)2MLJ787
ORDERHorwill, J.1. The petitioner was convicted under Section 409, Penal Code, of committing criminal breach of trust by dishonestly misappropriating a sum Rs. 118-15-0 entrusted to him in his capacity as Head Clerk, District Court, North Malabar; and the offence is said to have been committed between 2nd December 1940 and the 17th of that month. His appeal was dismissed, the conviction and sentence being affirmed. The principal question which arises in this petition is whether the learned Magistrate, purporting to act under Section 540, Criminal P.C., exercised his discretion improperly in admitting the evidence of a person who was examined as C.W. 1. The prosecution let in evidence through P.Ws. 8 and 9 that on 14th December 1940, the petitioner took a sum of Rs. 2 out of the bag in which he kept his money as Head Clerk and gave it to P.W. 9 to purchase seven stamp papers, which were subsequently handed over to P.W. 8. Formal evidence was given to this effect and there was not much c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1941Mad484; (1941)1MLJ788
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. This appeal involves two questions. The first question is whether the mortgagors of certain immovable properties were entitled to redeem the mortgage before the 10th September, 1928. The second question is whether a tender of Rs. 760 is, to be regarded as invalid because it fell short of the amount due by Rs. 4. The mortgage was created by the first, second and third defendants in favour of Donda Godavarayya, the appellants' father, on the 10th September, 1926. The mortgagors covenanted to repay all the principal and interest payable under the deed 'by' the 10th September, 1928. In the month of June, 1927, the fourth defendant, who. is now the first respondent, tendered to the mortgagee the sum of Rs. 760. The first respondent had purchased the equiry of redemption and therefore stood in the shoes of the mortgagors. In tendering the sum of Rs. 760 the first respondent did so in the full belief that this was the correct Amount. There had been a miscalcu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1941)2MLJ110
Somayya, J.1. The decree in O.S. No. 13 of 1925 was being executed by the Official Assignee of Madras in the Sub-Court of Devakottah. Meanwhile another person who obtained a decree in O.S. No. 56 of 1931 brought certain properties to sale in execution of his decree. Some properties were sold in execution of that decree and the deposit of one-fourth of the purchase money was made on 23rd September, 1940. Mr. R. Rama Aiyar, Advocate, Devakottah, who was appearing for the Official Assignee of Madras wrote on 24th September, 1940, intimating the proceedings in O.S. No. 56 of 1931. He advised the Official Assignee that an application for rateable distribution must be filed and stated that the matter was urgent. This was in view of the fact that the application for rateable distribution, if any, should be filed before the purchaser paid the balance of the purchase money into Court. On 26th September, 1940, the Official Assignee sent the necessary papers and the application was filed in the S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1941Mad632
ORDERSomayya, J.1. The decree in O.S. No. 13 of 1925 was being executed by the Official Assignee of Madras in the Sub-Court of Devakottah. Meanwhile another person who obtained a decree in O.S. No. 56 of 1931 brought certain properties to sale in execution of his decree. Some properties were sold in execution of that decree and the deposit of; one-fourth of the purchase money was made on 23rd September 1940. Mr. R. Rama Ayyar, advocate, Devakottah, who was appearing for the Official Assignee of Madras wrote on 24th September 1940 intimating the proceedings in O.S. No. 56 of 1931. He advised the Official Assignee that an application for rateable distribution must be filed and stated that the matter was urgent. This was in view of the fact that the application for rateable distribution, if any, should be filed before the purchaser paid the balance of the purchase money into Court. On 26th September 1940 the Official Assignee sent the necessary papers and the application was filed in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : AIR1941All158
Dar, J.1. The plaintiff-appellant Pandit Shushil Chander Chaturvedi is the proprietor of a business known as Hanuman Glass Works at Firozabad in the district of Agra. The defendants are a Mahomedan family resident of Armara close to Mrozabad in Agra district. Defendants 1 and 2, Wali Ullah and Niamat Ullah, are own brothers and defendants 3 to 6 are their nephews being sons of their deceased brother Abdul Hamid. There was a fourth brother Said also who died before the institution of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. According to the plaintiff the defendants are partners in three firms called Md. Said Abdul Hamid, Naimat Ullah Farid Uddin and Zahiruddin Gulam Ahmad. In the year 1930 on various dates these firms purchased certain glassware from the plaintiff and in the year 1931 a small sum of Rs. 5-8-0 was advanced by the plaintiff to these firms. In 1933, according to the plaintiff, accounts were made up of what was due to the plaintiff from these firms and it was found tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1941Mad528; (1941)1MLJ267
King, J.1. The appellant in this appeal obtained a decree for about Rs. 1600 ex parte against three defendants on 1st October, 1929. There was an application by the first defendant only to have this decree set aside and an order was passed in his favour that it would be set aside if he deposited a sum of Rs. 1100 and odd. Some of this money was deposited but not all and on 27th June, 1930, a revised decree was passed by the Court, in which due notice was taken, in calculating the amount due by the defendants, of the amount which had been so deposited and was to be withdrawn by the decree-holder. The decree-holder subsequently filed a number of execution applications beginning with 1932 and continuing until 1936 and in all these applications, he proceeded on the assumption that the liability of the defendants was that recorded in the original decree. In execution, the first defendant's properties were brought to sale in February, 1937, and an application was filed under Order 21, Rule 9...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : AIR1941Cal291
Lort-Williams, Ag. C.J.1. The plaintiff sues for money paid at the request of the defendant. At the time when the suit was instituted the defendant was living at Dhankuta in the Kingdom of Nepal. The money was paid in Calcutta within the jurisdiction by means of cheques drawn upon the plaintiff's account with the Imperial Bank of India. Particulars are given in the plaint. The defendant contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit because the defendant is a non-resident foreigner and was not residing within the jurisdiction when the suit was instituted. Further she alleges that no part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction, that no money was paid to her and no request was made by her as alleged or at all, that; the money in the said account and Bank was and is the defendant's money, that the account was opened in the name of the plaintiff with a sum of Rs. 25,000 belonging to the defendant, and that the moneys drawn by the plaintiff were drawn under the d...
Tag this Judgment!