Mumbai Court February 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.
Prayaga Doss Jee Varu Vs. Tirumala Anandam Tillai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR588
Macnaghten, J.1. The suit which has given rise to this Appeal was brought for the purpose of having a scheme settled for the management of a Hindu Devastanam, or temple, situated in Tirupati and the protection of its funds.2. It was not disputed in either of the Courts below that a schem was necessary. The questions in debate were confined to matters of detail.3. The state of things which made a scheme necessary and the earlier history of the Institution are summed up in the following passage taken from the Judgment of the High Court:-The temple of Sri Venkutonvura in Tirumalai or Tirapati in the North Arcot District is a very ancient Hindu Temple to which worshippers resort from all parts of India and is in receipt of an annual income of between two and three lakhs of rupees. Prior to the establishment of the British Government, the management of the institution was directly under the ruler of the country for the time being. After the advent of the British, the management passed into ...
Lal Bahadur Vs. Kanhaia Lal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR597
Andrew Scoble, J.1. The litigation in this case began between three brothers, sons of one Durga Parshad, two of whom, named Lal Bahadur and Jagdamba Parshad, brought a suit against their elder brother Kanhaia Lal, the present respondent, to set aside a will made by their father, which they contended was invalid and void according to Hindu law, Jagdamba Parshad has died since the institution of the suit and his minor sons represent his interest in this appeal.2. Durga Parshad was one of the three sons of one Gobind Ram and it is admitted that he separated from his two brothers, Jwala Parshad and Hazari Lal, in 1866. Up to that time the three brothers had formed a joint Hindu family; but a complete partition of the family property, whatever it was, was then made between them. At the date of the partition, two of Durga Parshad's sons, Kanhaia Lal and Lal Bahadur, were living ; the third son, Jagdamba Parshad, was born subsequently.3. The most important question which their Lordships have ...
Anandrao Ganpatrao Vs. Vasantrao Madhavrao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR595
Robertson, J.1. The suit in these procedings is for partition of family property and the main question in dispute is whether the property is joint and ancestral. The suit was instituted on 2nd July 1901, in the High Court at Bombay, by the first respondent in this appeal, who will be referred to as the respondent. The appellants were defendants; and, shortly stated, their defence was (1) that the property in dispute was not joint ancestral estate; (2) that the suit was barred by limitation; (3) that the respondent was prevented from suing by a certain release dated 28th January 1889. The Judge of first instance, Mr. Justice Tyabji, decided the case in favour of the appellants, on the ground of limitation. This question has occupied, in the argument before their Lordships, a position of subordinate importance and the respondent is entitled to point to the Judgment of Mr. Justice Tyabji as in no way adverse to his main conten-tion that the property was joint and ancestral. An appeal havi...
Deputy Commissioner of Kheri Vs. Khanjan Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR591
Arthur Wilson, J.1. The case out of which this appeal arises relates to an alienation by a Hindu widow of property which had belonged to her husband.2. The properties in dispute formed a part of the estate of Kalka Bakhsh, who died in or before 1868, without male issue, leaving as his heir his widow Man Kunwar, who took as such heir the estate of a Hindu widow.3. During the lifetime of Kalka Bakhsh, on the 12th July 18G1, a decree based upon a mortgage was passed against Kalka Bakhsh and others, in favour of Raja Anrudh Singh, for a sum of Rs. 28,320-12, principal and interest, payable in two instalments, interest subsequent to the decree being disallowed. Kalka Bakhsh's share of liability under this decree became ascertained at Rs. 7,080.4. Proceedings were subsequently taken to execute the decree and on the 22nd October 1866, the then; Deputy Commissioner of Kheri, before whom the execution was in progress, made a decree or order, allowing in favour of the judgment-creditor, what the...
Bijoy Gopal Mukerji Vs. Srimati Krishna Mahishi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR602
Davey, J.1. The only question on this appeal is whether the suit out of which it arises is barred by limitation. The appellants (plaintiffs in the suit) are four of the reversionary-heirs of one Chandra Bhusan Mukerji, who died childless. so long ago as the year 1832. He was succeeded by his widow Soyamoni Debi, who died on the 21st October 1893. The principal defendants to the suit or their successors in title, being respondents 1 to 68, are in possession of the property in suit and claim to be entitled thereto either directly or by derivative titles under an ijara, or lease, of the whole of Chandra Bhusan's property for a term of sixty years, executed by Soyamoni on the 7th September 1863. The other defendants or their successors in title, being the last three respondents, are the other reversionary heirs, who have not joined the appellants as plaintiffs. By their plaint the appellants prayed a declaration that the ijara in question and all the rights subordinate thereto mentioned in...
Maganlal Gopaldas Vs. Lalchand Hirachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR259
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. The litigants are descendants of a common ancestor Kuvarji Bhaiehand, who died in Samvat 1943. Disputes as to the family property resulted in a reference to arbitration without the intervention of the Court and an award in accordance with which a decree was passed. The purpose of this suit is to obtain a declaration that the decree was invalid.2. The lower Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that if is opposed to the provisions of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act and the plaintiff has appealed. The defendants have sought to support the decree on the ground that no good cause of action is shown and secondly that having regard to the proceedings in the arbitration matter the plaintiff is precluded from advancing the contentions on which he rests.3. The plaintiff was a minor at the date of the reference and his mother who was his natural guardian purported to act on his behalf.4. The grounds on which the plaintiff based his claim in the lower Court are...
Zungabai Bhawani Vs. Bhawani Appaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR388
Batty, J.1. Both the lower Courts have found that the person from whom the second defendant purchased had no beneficial interest in the property sold, but was a trustee or ostensible owner only.2. The Court of first in stance held that the plaintiff, who was beneficially interested, was not estopped from recovering the land from the purchaser. The lower appellate Court has reversed the decree of the Court of first instance on the ground that the 2nd defendant was a purchaser for value without notice and that the plaintiff must have known of the transaction entered into between her trustee or the ostensible owner and the second defendant. The doctrine of purchaser for value without notice has, we think, been improperly applied in this instance. No purchaser can protect himself against the claim of a real owner merely by saying that he had no notice of the real owner's title. A purchaser is not justified in shutting his eyes and buying recklessly from a vendor without any inquiry and res...
Karsondas Dharamsey Vs. Gangabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR566
Lawrence Jenkins, C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council from an order of the High Court refusing to admit an appeal after the period of limitation prescribed therefor by the Limitation Act.2. The ground for this refusal was that the appellant had failed to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of limitation. The decree from which it was then desired to appeal was one passed by a single Judge in the exercise of the High Court's original civil jurisdiction.3. The question now arises whether we have power to grant the leave sought.4. Mr. Setalvad, for the applicant, argues that the order of refusal, having regard to the definition of 'decree' in Section 594 of the Civil Procedure Code, is a final decree within either Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 595 of the Civil Procedure Code.5. He does not rely on Clause (c).6. But can it be said that that this is a final decree passed on appeal by a High Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›