Mumbai Court May 1906 Judgments
Maniram Vs. Seth Rupchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-25-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR501
Alfred Wills, J.1. One Motiram, of whom the appellant (the plaintiff in the action) is the adopted son, and one Rupchand, the respondent and the defendant in the action, were mahajans or money dealers, both residents of Burhanpur in the Central Provinces. They had regular dealings with one another from 21st July 1895 to 12th May 1898, and at the close of these dealings the respondent owed Motiram Rs. 5841-9-1 on account of principal, and Rs. 2801-2-0 on account of interest. No question has been raised as to the correctness of these amounts if the action be maintainable.2. The present suit was brought on the 5th September 1901 to recover these amounts. There is no question that they were due. The respondent admitted in his pleading that they were so, and the only defence is that the action was barred by the lapse of time.3. Motiram died on the 6th October 1898 leaving a will by which the respondent and four other persons were appointed trustees to administer the estate. Three of them, o...
Tag this Judgment!Ramanathan Chetti Vs. Murugappa Chetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-24-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR498
Macnaghten, J.1. In the village of Kottoor, in the Zemindari of Sivagunga, there is a Hindu temple dedicated to the public worship of the deity in whose honour it was founded, and endowed with the revenue of three villages. The office of manager of this temple is hereditary in a family of which the appellant and respondent are both members, but the family has no beneficial interest in the property or in the income of the temple.2. The office of manager was formerly vested in one Mayandi Chetti, who was grandfather of the respondent andgreat grand father of the appellant. On Mayandi's death the office devolved by inheritance on his male descendants by his two wives. There were four by each wife, or eight in all. One member of each branch took themanagement for one year in alternate succession until the year 1881-82. About that time the member of the junior branch renounced or relinquished their claim to the office in favour of the respondent who is a member of the senior branch. During ...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudeva Modeliar Vs. Shadagopa Modeliar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-17-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR497
Macnaghten, J.1. Their Lordships desire to repeat what has been often stated by this Board before, namely, that applications of this sort ought always to be made, in the first instance at any rate, to the Court in India, which as sample power to deal with the matter according to the circumstances of the particular case, and his knowledge of details which this Board cannot possess on an interlocutory application. In the present case their Lordships know no more than what is brought before them by affidavits not altogether satisfactory. There is, however, an indication in the Judgment of the High Court showing that in their opinion an extension of the stay of proceedings ought to be granted. Acting upon that suggestion their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty to grant a stay of proceedings on the appellants giving an undertaking by their Counsel to lodge the petition of appeal and their case within a fortnight from the time the Record arrives in England, and also at the same time t...
Tag this Judgment!Auseri Lal Vs. Raja Maneshar Bakhsh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR491
Davey, J.1. The original plaintiff Auseri Lal was the head of a joint Hindoo family. He is now deceased, and the present appellants, as the surviving members of the family, have been substituted for him on the record. Auseri Lal on behalf of the family, formerly carried on the business of a banker and money-lender in the District of Sitapur in Oudh And in the course of his business he had, previously to the transactions which are the subject of this appeal, lent money to the respondent, who was and is the Talukdar of Mallanpur in the same District.2. In the year 1886 the respondent, being then largely involved in debt, was, on his own application, declared by the Chief Commissioner of Oudh a disqualified proprietor under the provisions of the Oudh Land Revenue Act, 1876, and his property was placed under the charge of the Court of Wards on the 12th August in that year. The respondent's property remained under such charge until some time in the month of July 1898, when it was released t...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Kesserbai Vs. Hunsraj Morarji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR446
Davey, J.1. The question in this appeal relates to the succession to immoveable property in the Island of Bombay, of which a Hindoo lady named Kumari Bachubai died possessed. She was the widow of one Koreji Haridass, who died in February 1898. On the 24th November 1892 Koreji Haridass executed an ante-nuptial settlement of the property now in dispute, whereby he conveyed it to Kumari Bachubai, her heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, for ever, subject to the following conditions :-1. If the said Kumari Bachubai shall die before the said intended marriage has been celebrated and completed then the said house land and premises shall revert to and again become the absolute property of the said Koreji Haridass, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns.2. If the said Kumari Bachubai shall die after the said intended marriage has been celebrated and completed without leaving issue of the said intended marriage who shall succeed to a vested interest in the said house, land ...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Kalidas Rewadas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR477
ORDER1. The Court reject the application on the ground that it is of opinion that the Income Tax Collector is not a Court, within the meaning of Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code....
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Lal Vs. Jadunath Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR489
Macnaghten, J.1.The Code of Civil Procedure (Section 462) provides that:-'No next friend or guardian for the suit shall without the leave of the Court, enter into any agreement or compromise on behalf of a minor with reference to the suit in which he acts as next friend or guardian.' It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the exigencies of that provision had been complied with in this case, inasmuch as it appeared that the minor (the first respondent), who was a party to the compromises in question, was described in the title of the suit as a minor suing 'under the guardianship of his mother,' and the terms of the compromises were, of course, before the Court. In the opinion of their Lordships that is not sufficient. There ought to be evidence that the attention of the Court was directly called to the fact that a minor was a party to the compromises, and it ought to be shown, by an order on Petition, or in some way not open to doubt, that the leave of the Court was obtained. Thi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›