Mumbai Court October 1909 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.
Bai Divali Vs. Vishnav Manordas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.829
1. In this cafe the Subordinate Judge in an administration suit upon issue No. 3 decided in effect a substantial question of right between the parties, and Having so decided lie appointed receivers of all the property in question in the suit.2. An appeal was preferred from his judgment to the District Judge and it was sought to challenge in appeal the finding upon the third issue on the ground that it was a decree. It was, however, objected that there was no decree and the learned District Judge held that there was no decree which could be the subject of an appeal. He, therefore, disposed of the appeal confining the objections of the appellant to the order for the appointment of receivers.3. Against his decision with reference to the appointment of receivers, no second appeal would lie, but the appellant comes here in second appeal contending that there has been a decree with reference to the question raised in the third issue and that the learned District Judge was wrong in declining ...
Pilu Appa Nalwade Vs. Babaji Naru Mang and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.584
1. In this second appeal the facts are these. One Appa died in or about the year 1899 leaving two widows, Kondai and Chima, and a daughter by Chima, namely, the second defendant. The second defendant has a son, Narayan. In February 1903 the two widows made a deed of gift of four-fifths of their husband's property in favour of the second defendant, reserving the other fifth for their own maintenance. In October 1904 Kondai adopted the plaintiff, who is the son of Appa's separated nephew.2. The question is whether the plaintiff is bound by the alienation made prior to his adoption. The gift was consented to by the defendant No. 2, the actual donee, and by her son, Narayan. The Court below have accepted this consent as a sufficient consent on behalf of the reversioners likely to be interested in disputing the gift, and upon this ground have dismissed plaintiff's suit. But we are of opinion that this ground cannot serve to sustain the decree.3. The general principle which prohibits a Hindu...
Parasharampant Sadashivpant Vs. Rama Yellappa Lakundi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1909
Reported in: 4Ind.Cas.588
1. The plaintiff sued the defendants for possession of certain land alleging that the defendants' father had sold it to the plaintiff's grandfather in 1879.2. The defendants resisted the claim contending that the alleged sale was a mortgage which had been redeemed in 1894 by payment of Rs. 300 to the plaintiff's uncle Dattopant and that the defendants had since then been in possession as owners.3. It was found by both the Courts that the defendants had been in possession as tenants of Dattopant, the plaintiff's uncle, prior to 1894, the date of the alleged redemption.4. The defendants set up a case of possession since 1893. The suit was filed in May 1904; so that upon the defendants' case no question of limitation arises.5. The Subordinate Judge found that the defendants' story of redemption by payment of Rs. 300 in 1894 was false and that the endorsement appearing upon the sale-deed was not a genuine endorsement, and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff for possession. 6. An app...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›