Allumuddy Vs. Braham and anr.

Allumuddy vs Braham and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 17, 1878

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/855134

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/855134
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Richard Garth, C.J. and ;Markby, J.
Decided On: Jun 17, 1878
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Married Women's Property Act (III of 1874), Sections 4, 7 and 8 - Domicile--Decree against separate property of wife. -

Key legal issue: Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Allumuddy

Respondent

Braham and anr.

Legal References

Reported In: (1879)ILR4Cal140

Excerpt

married women's property act (iii of 1874), sections 4, 7 and 8 - domicile--decree against separate property of wife. - richard garth, c.j.1. it being found, as a fact, that the millinery business was carried on by the wife alone, and that the husband had no concern in it, we think it clear that the judge was right in giving a decree against the wife alone. the husband could only be made liable in such a case upon the principle that the wife was impliedly carrying on the business as his agent; and we consider that any such implication is excluded by the provisions of the act and the facts as found in the case.2. we also think that the decree should be executed only against the wife's separate property; and that the form of it should be limited accordingly.

Full Judgment

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. It being found, as a fact, that the millinery business was carried on by the wife alone, and that the husband had no concern in it, we think it clear that the Judge was right in giving a decree against the wife alone. The husband could only be made liable in such a case upon the principle that the wife was impliedly carrying on the business as his agent; and we consider that any such implication is excluded by the provisions of the Act and the facts as found in the case.

2. We also think that the decree should be executed only against the wife's separate property; and that the form of it should be limited accordingly.

Same Parties Allumuddy vs Braham and anr. Same Subject Property Same Judge Richard Garth, C.J. and ;Markby, J.

Property