Mumbai Court October 1907 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.
Deu Dada Gavli Vs. Sitaram Chimnaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1179
Chandavarkar, J.1. The suit was brought in the Mamlatdar's Court under Clause (6) of Section 19 of the Mamlatdars' Act. According to the finding of the Mamlatdar, the tenancy of defendants 1 and 2 which had commenced on the 5 th of June 1905 expired on the 6 th of June 1906; and the suit having been filed within six months from the latter date, the Mamlatdar had jurisdiction to take cognisance of it, so far as the cause of action affecting defendants 1 and 2, the tenants of the plaintiff, was concerned. But it is contended before us as it was before the Mamlatdar that he had no jurisdiction to try the suitbe far as it affected defendant No. 3. Now the Mamlatdar has found that defendant No, 3 has been in possession of the land since November 1905. That defendant having gone into possession during the continuance of defendants 1 and 2's tenancy, the plaintiff could not have sued in the Mamlatdar's Court to oust her : Goma v. Naraingrao I L R (1895) 20 Bom. 26. Defendants 1 and 2 could ha...
Bai Rukhmani Vs. Keshavlal Ranchhod
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1293
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The only question that arises on this appeal is whether in Gujarat daughters succeeding to the non-technical Stridhan of their mother take joint interests with rights of survivorship, or several interests.2. Under the law as established in this Presidency they would take absolute interests and according to the decision inBulakhidtis v. Keshavlal I L R (1881) 6 Bom 85 those interests would be several.3. The appellant seeks to escape from this position by reliance on the decision of the Privy Council in Raja GhelikaniVenhayyamma Garu's case .4. What was there determined was that under the Mitakshara law the two sons of a Hindu's only daughter, being members of a united family, succeed on their mother's death to his property jointly with benefit of survivorship and that each did not take a divided share, which on his death devolved on his representatives or assigns.5. This is considerably removed from the matter here in dispute. But it is claimed that the reasonin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›