Mumbai Court December 1902 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.
Vadilal Lallubhai Vs. Shah Khushal Dalpatram and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom102
Chandavarkar, J.1. The Joint Judge, differing from the Subordinate Judge, has rejected the suit on the ground that the plaintiff is not the only partner in the firm of Chamanlal Vadilal, but that his father and his minor brother also are partners who ought to have been added as co-plaintiffs. This finding is based upon the fact found by the Joint Judge that the plaintiff's father and minor brother are joint with him, by which we understand the Judge to mean that they are members of a joint Hindu family. But from the mere fact that certain persons are members of a joint family it does not necessarily follow that they are partners in a firm which only one of them says is his, unless it was set up with the help of family funds. There is nothing in the judgment of the Joint Judge to show that the firm was so set up except the statement of the father, which is accepted by the Joint Judge. But, according to the statement, the father lent money to the plaintiff. That would make him a creditor...
ishvar Timappa Hegde Vs. Devar Venkappa Shanbog and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom95
L.H. Jenkins, C.J.1. This appeal raises the point whether a person can sue under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act before he has obtained a decree on the debt by virtue of which he claims to be a creditor of the transferer.2. Under the Statute 13 Eliz., c. 5, on which this section is in part based, a creditor can sue before recovering judgment on his debt, but the words of that statute are no doubt different. The difficulty here is created by the provision in Section 53 that the transfer is voidable at the option of any person so defrauded, defeated or delayed, for it maybe argued that a creditor whose debt is not established by a decree does not fall within this description. But it appears to us that this is a question to be determined by reference to the facts of each case. The decree is evidence--and valuable evidence--that he who complains is a creditor; but it is not the only evidence. The plaintiff's position may be proved otherwise, and proved as against the debtor, whe...
Rajmal Motiram and ors. Vs. Shivaji Anandrav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom100
L.H. Jenkins, C.J.1. Then it is argued that as the two later bonds passed in favour of the mortgagees provided that the amount due on the mortgages could not be paid off in redemption of the property, without also paying that which was due on those bonds, the lower Appellate Court should have awarded redemption only on those terms. The subsequent bonds are not registered, and it is conceded that they do not create any charge on the land; but it is said that notwithstanding this warrant for the appellants' contention is to be found in Hari Mahadaji v. Balambhat (1884) 9 Bom. 233. The lower Appellate Court, however, is not satisfied that there is anything due on the bonds, and so we are not under the necessity of considering whether the cited decision involves a violation of the principle that an equity of redemption cannot be clogged. The meaning of that rule has been recently expounded in Noakes & Co. v. Bice (1902) A.C. 24 by Lord Davey, who, dealing with the doctrine that a provision...
The Collector of Ahmedabad Vs. Savchand Ladukchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1902
Reported in: (1904)ILR27Bom91
Chandavarkar, J.1. This is an appeal from an order passed by the District Judge of Ahmedabad, granting the application made by the respondent, Savchand Ladnkchand, for the refund of Rs. 207-2-0 deposited by him in Court with his petition for letters of administration to the estate of Maganlal Ladukchand.2. The application for refund was made under the following circumstances: Maganlal Ladukchand had deposited a sum of Bs, 5,000 with the Bank of Bombay and another sum of Rs. 5,00,0 with a Commercial Company. He died leaving two minor sons. A demand was made on behalf of the minor eons from the Bank and the Company for the respective deposits, but they declined to pay the sums unless letters of administration were taken out for the estate of the deceased. Accordingly the respondent, Savchand Ladukchand, made an application to the District Court of Ahmedabad for letters of administration and he deposited Rs. 207-2-0 to cover the probate duty chargeable under Article XI, Schedule I to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›