Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Feb-01-1933
Reported in : AIR1933Bom398; (1933)35BOMLR630
Patkar, J.1. The property in suit belonged to one Somchand, the father of the minor plaintiff. After Somchand's death, the mother of the plaintiff Amrutbai entered into an agreement to sell the property in suit for Rs. 10,251 to defendant No. 2, the appellant, in 1917, and applied to the High Court on the Original Side in February 1918 to be appointed guardian of her minor son, the plaintiff Amarchand, of his person and property. In March 1918, she was appointed guardian of the person and property, and permission was granted to her to complete the agreement. In April 1918, a sale deed, Exhibit 64, was executed by her in favour of defendant No. 2. He carried out improvements and also fought out a litigation in respect of the land. After the death of the plaintiff's mother, the paternal uncle of the minor plaintiff brought a suit on the Original Side of the High Court in 1924 for setting aside the appointment of the mother as guardian and for rescission of the agreement of sale, and mesn...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : May-08-1933
Reported in : 147Ind.Cas.707; (1933)65MLJ420
Ramesam, J.1. In this appeal a preliminary objection is taken that the appeal does not lie to this Court. For the purpose of deciding the objection we have to see what the nature of the suit is. The suit was for a declaration that the properties which are the subject-matter of the suit do not belong to the 2nd defendant but belong to the plaintiff and defendants 3 and 4 and that the 1st defendant had no power to bring them to sale as the properties of the 2nd defendant and for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from selling them. Under the Court-Fees Act, Section 7(4) the plaintiff has got to value the injunction and pay Court-fees ad valorem on it. Prior to the amendment of the Court-Fees Act in 1922 the plaintiff might have given any valuation he liked. But the amendment prescribes a minimum valuation which is half the value of the land. Here the value of the suit properties is Rs. 8,000 and therefore the plaintiff had to value the relief at not less than Rs. 4,000....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-03-1933
Reported in : AIR1933All764
Mukherji, J.1. This is a revision purporting to have been filed under Section 115, Civil P.C., and Section 107, Government of India Act. It arises out of an election petition filed by the applicant, Mr. Ghulam Nizam Uddin, against the opposite party, Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan. The respondent was elected a member of the District Board of Agra and his election was challenged by the applicant. The respondent produced before the District Judge, who heard the election petition, a document, said to have been signed by the applicant, by which it was alleged, he said that he had agreed for a consideration of Rs. 50, which he had already received, to withdraw the case, as he, the applicant, was aware of the weakness of his case. The District Judge inquired into the allegation of this adjustment of the election petition before him, and having come to the conclusion that the matter in dispute had been adjusted as alleged, he dismissed the petition.2. In this Court the applicant has challenged the va...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Aug-03-1933
Reported in : 147Ind.Cas.148
Mukerji, J.1. This is a revision purporting to have been filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 107 of the Government of India Act. It arises out of an election petition filed by the applicant, Mr. Ghulam Nizam Uddin, against the opposite party, Mr. Akhtar Husain Khan. The respondent was elected a member of the District Board of Agra and his election was challenged by the applicant. The Respondent produced before the District Judge, who heard the election petition, a document, said to have been signed by the applicant, by which it was alleged, he said that he had agreed for a consideration of Rs. 50 which he had already received, to withdraw the case, as he, the applicant was aware of the weakness of his case. The District Judge inquired into the allegation of this adjustment of the election petition before him, and having come to the conclusion that the matter in dispute had been adjusted as alleged, he dismissed the petition.2. In this Court the applicant has...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Decided on : Nov-14-1933
Reported in : AIR1934Mad436; 152Ind.Cas.75
Sundaram Chetty, J.1. This appeal arises out of a testamentary suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for the grant of probate of a will dated 22nd July 1930, and alleged to have been executed by the late Rangammal. Plaintiff is Rangam mal's husband's brother's daughter. Plaintiff's brother is the late Subbaroya Beddi, the father of the minor defendant. According to the case of the plaintiff, she and her elder brother Subbaroya Reddi were living with Rangammal after their parents' death, but after the marriage of Subbaroya Reddi he went over to his mother-in-law's house and the plaintiff alone continued to live with Bangammal throughout. Plaintiff has a daughter Muthiammal. Under the will in question (Ex. A), Bangammal bequeathed a debt due to her on a pro-note amounting to Rs. 1,900 together with moveables worth Bs. 25 in favour of the plaintiff to be held and enjoyed by her for her life and the remainder should be taken by her daughter Muthiammal with absolute rights. Rangammal had a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Aug-24-1933
Reported in : AIR1933Cal800
Lort-Williams, J.1. The appellant, Major Robert Stuart Wauchope, O.B.E., Indian Army, has bean convicted by the Chief Presidency Magistrate of criminal breach of trust under Section 409, I.P.C., in respect of two sums of Rs. 1,500 each alleged to have been received by him on 4th March and 1st July 1929, respectively, from the Government of the Nizam of Hyderabad, in his official capacity as officer in charge of No 6 Survey Party of the Government of India, with headquarters at Bangalore and field headquarters at Secunderabad, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 on each of two counts, the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently.2. The appellant is the son of the late Col. Wauchope, C.B., C.M.G., C.I.E., of the Survey of India, and is an officer of 27 years' standing. He joined the army in 1906, and was appointed to the Survey of India in 1910. Between 1914 and 1921 he was again employed on military duty, during which period he was appointed Assistant ...
Tag this Judgment!