Mumbai Court July 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.
Somabhai Hirachand Vs. Wadilal Premchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR883
Louis P. Russell, Acting C.J.1. In this case we think the rule must be made absolute.2. It appears that on the 6th August 1906 the defendant applied for a review.3. At that time he did not deposit in Court the amount due from him under the decree, nor did he give security to the satisfaction of the Court for the due performance of the decree or com pliance with the judgment.4. Now it seems to us looking at the terms of Section 17 and following the two cases which have been cited to us, viz. Jogi Ahir v. Bishen Dayal Singh ILR (1890) Cal 83 and Jagan Nath v. Chet Ram ILR (1906) All 1906 and also looking at the punctuation of the section itself, it is clear that the words 'at the time of presenting his application govern and refer to both the deposit of the amount in Court' and 'the giving of security &c;' and therefore 'deposit' or 'security' is a condition precedent to the granting of the review.5. The Madras judgment which has been cited to us gives no reason for the contrary opinion ...
Manikbai Jivaraj Vs. Virchand Ramchandra
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1020
Chandavarkar, J.1. Both the Courts below have dismissed the appellant's suit as being barred by the decision in the previous Suit No. 15 of 1904. In that suit she set up her right as heir of her father and upon that basis claimed that an account should be taken of the partnership between her father and the present respondents.2. That suit was dismissed as being barred by limitation under Article 106 of Schedule II to the Indian Limitation Act.3. In the present suit she claims as heir of her father and mother, alleging that on her father's death, the mother was admitted into the partnership: and she prays for an account of both the partnerships. So far as the partnership with the father is concerned, the claim is barred as resjudicata by the decision in the previous suit. The question is whether the claim in respect of the partnership with the mother also is so barred. According to the principle of the decision in Guddappa v. Tirkdppa ILR (1900) 25 Bom. 159 : 2 Bom. L.R. 872. it would b...
Mahomed Abdulla Jitaker Vs. Abdul Rehman Jitaker
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-01-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR998
Macleod, J.1. This is a suit praying for the administration of the estate of one Moulvi Abdul Kader Jitekar who died at Bombay intestate on the 12th day of February 1905, leaving him surviving two sons Mahomed Abdulla, the first plaintiff and Abdul Rehman, the first defendant, a widow Ayeshabibi, the second plaintiff and a daughter Mariambibi, the second defendant. Apart from moveabies the deceased at the time of his death Was in possession of four immoveable properties detailed in Part II of Schedule A to the plaint and had also been held entitled to a share in two immoveable properties detailed in Part III of the same schedule. By a Wakfnama dated the 16th May 1900 the deceased purported to settle the said four immoveable properties upon certain trusts and the principal point in dispute in this suit is whether this deed is valid and binding upon the parties.2. In effect the settlor conveys the properties to himself as Mutawalli then to the first defendant then to grand-sons in succes...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›