Mumbai Court August 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.
Ganu Anantshet Vs. Ganu Mahadev
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR966
Knight, J.1. This matter has been seriously confused by the course followed by the lower appellate Court, which has dismissed the suit as against two of the defendants and, so far as concerns part of the plaint property, but has remanded it for decision on other points as regards the remaining property and defendants. We cannot countenance this piecemeal decision of the suit. Findings on the issues may of course be recorded from time to time as the hearing proceeds, but in the nature of things the pronouncement of the decree must be reserved until the materials laid before the Court have all been fully assimilated. We will not pause to point out the difficulty which this treatment of the suit before us has already created, but will content ourselves with reversing so much of the order of the lower appellate Court as amounts to a decree, viz. the sentence in the penultimate paragraph commencing 'the suit as regards the eastern moiety' and concluding 'costs in both Courts'. With this we ...
Jan Mahomed Abdul Vs. Syed Nurudin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR996
Chandavarkar, J.1. We are against the appellants on the preliminary objection to this appeal raised by the respondents' counsel. We are of opinion that the suit having been brought by the Advocate General, he was the proper party to appeal and not the relators who have filed this appeal. They were not parties to the suit and as relators they have no right to step in when the Advocate General, who was plaintiff, has not thought fit to appeal against the dismissal of the suit.2. The authorities cited by Mr. Strangman, viz. Daniell's Chancery Practice, Vol. 1, page 56,. and The Attorney-General v. Wright (1841) 3 Beav. 447 are in point.3. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs (including the costs reserved yesterday) upon the ground that the appeal does not lie at the instance of the relators....
Sheikh Chand Vs. Hiralal Shamlal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-05-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1114
Chandavarkar, J.1. There has been no investigation into the merits of the case so far as the minor defendants are concerned. Where a plaintiff comes into Court alleging that a mortgage has been executed in his favour by one of the defendants acting on behalf of himself and other defendants, some of whom are minors and all of them constitute a joint family, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove legal necessity for the mortgage, whether the minor defendants' guardian has pleaded the absence of such necessity or not. In Shamsundar Lal v. Acchan Kunwar (1898) 25 I.A. 183 the Privy Council observed that in a suit ' on a bond made by a person with restricted power of alienation the defendants are not required to plead the absence of legal necessity for the borrowing. It is for the plaintiffs to allege and prove the circumstances which alone will give A validity to the mortgage. '2. That was no doubt a case of an alienation by a Hindu widow and here the alienation set up by the plaintif...
Banoo Begum Vs. Mir Aun Ali (No. 2)
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR983
Davar, J.1. Under Rule 577 the first defendant's attorneys applied to me for an order to review the taxation of the plaintiff's Bill of Costs. Mr. Strangman appeared for the plaintiff to support the Bill as taxed, It was originally intended to urge objections against four items namely; (1) Instruction charges; (2) Costs incurred in applying to me in Court to have this suit placed on another Board; (3) Refreshers allowed to Mr. Mirza, counsel for the plaintiff; and (4) Bhatta allowance of a witness named Shaik Hyat Saheb. 2. The first objection was not pressed before me : in fact as soon as the matter was brought on, Mr. Nariman abandoned his objection to the Instruction charges. The last item was one which appeared to me to be clearly within the Taxing Master's discretion and on my intimating my disinclination to go into that item Mr. Nariman did not press this matter further. The first and the fourth items objected to by the first defendant therefore go out of consideration. In view o...
Fatmabibi Vs. Shaik Hassan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1907
Reported in: (1907)9BOMLR1071
Davar, J.1. On the 23rd of January 1871 Fatmabibi, the original first plaintiff and her husband Haji Ebrahim Haji Abdul Cadur Jitayker, executed an indenture of trust whereby they conveyed certain immoveable and moveable property to Haji Abdul Cadur bin Rahiroudin Jitayker and Hassamudin Shabudir. Jitayker as trustees upon certain trusts which are set out in the said indenture of trust. The settlors reserved to themselves life interest in the settled property and then declared certain other trusts in favour of their progeny which it is unnecessary to refer to further in view of the events that have happened. In the event of failure of progeny it is provided that the 'trustees or trustee shall stand possessed of the said hereditaments and premises in trust for such charitable uses, intents and purposes as to the trustees or trustee for the time being of these presents shall seem meet and expedient.' The settlors reserved to themselves and the survivor of them the right to nominate and a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›