Mumbai Court August 1881 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Hirbai Vs. Jan Mahomed Khalakdina and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-15-1881
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom2295
West, J.1. It has been properly admitted on behalf of the defendants ia this case that Khalphanbhoy probably intended to settle a sum of Us. 5,000 upon the plaintiff Hirbai.2. He did settle Rs. 5,000 upon his other daughter Mulbai, and there is nothing to make the statement of Rahimbhoy incredible when he says that Khalphanbhoy repeatedly told him that he intended to bestow an equal bounty on each of his daughters.3. Rahimbhoy adds that, about a fortnight before his death, Khalphanbhoy said that he had bought a house for one daughter and a loan note for. Rs. 5,000 for the other. This is the most important piece of evidence, as being that of a disinterested witness, adduced for the plaintiff. It goes to show an intention to benefit the plaintiff entertained by Khalphanbhoy; but the question remains whether the benefit had actually been conferred, or whether the speaker, by the words deposed to, intended to confer it by declaring himself a trustee for his daughter, so that the equitable ...
Mahadaji Gopal Bakiekar Vs. Vithal Ballal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1881
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom78
M.R. Westropp, Kt., C.J.1. Trimbak Krishna Soni's attachment was defeated in 1858 by the pretence that the defendants, Vithal and Gangadhar (who are undivided co-parceners), were holding the land as purchasers, and such was the capacity which certain of the exhibits represented those defendants to fill. Before 1862 the whole of the property had become vested in them ostensibly as purchasers; but exhibits 19 and 18, which are found to be genuine, show that their real position was that of mortgagees, and that in that capacity they had received two sums of Rs. 375 each, i.e. Rs. 750 in the aggregate. Assuming as above assumed, and as the Courts below have found, that the arbitration award, the decree founded thereon, and the sale to Bhikaji and transfer by Bhikaji to Vithal, were for the fraudulent purpose of shielding Gopal's equity of redemption in the lands from the execution of Soni, yet it is impossible for any Court of Equity to allow the defendants to pose as purchasers or owners, ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›