Mumbai Court March 1910 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.
Kasim Ahmed Jewa Vs. NaraIn Chetty
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR646
Macnaghten, J.1. This is a pure question a fact. Their Lordships see no reason to disturb the judgment of the Court from which the appeal is brought.2. It does not appear to their Lordships necessary to go into the affirmative case made by Mr. De Gruyther. It is enough to say that in their Lordships' opinion the judgment of the Chief Court of Lower Burma is right, and their Lordships agree with it for the reasons which they have given, and which it is not necessary for their Lordships to repeat.3. With reference to the two clerks, their evidence is not sufficient to support the defendants' case. The evidence is extremely weak. They say it is customary to endorse on a promissory note the payments made on account. There is no endorsement on the promissory note, and there is no corroboration of their statement, which is positively denied on the other side.4. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal must be dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of th...
Munshi Munnu Lal Vs. Ghulam Abbas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-08-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR439
Macnaghten, J.1. Their lordships are of opinion that the decision of the Subordinate Judge was perfectly right.2. The question is whether the respondents in whose favour a former decree, made when they were infants, has been set aside, were properly represented at the hearing of the suit in which the decree was pronounced.3. The objection was that the affidavit required by Section 456 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not forthcoming. It does not appear whether in point of fact there was an affidavit or not-But assuming that there was not such an affidavit their lordships think it impossible now to hold that the infants were not properly represented at the time. The learned Judge appointed Ghulam Razzak their guardian ad litem. The order is on the record and it must be presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that everything was regularly and properly done.4. The case that was referred to of Mussammat Bibi Walian v. Banke Behari Pershad Singh (1903) L.R. 30 IndAp 132 is re...
Chunilal Tulsiram Vs. Mulabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR466
Chandavarkar, J.1. It is not disputed that Exhibit 36 is inadmissible in evidence for want of stamp. But the question is whether it can be treated as having been admitted in evidence within the meaning of Section 36 of the Stamp Act (II of 1899) ' so as to debar the appellant from questioning its addressability on the ground of want of stamp. The Subordinate Judge in his written judgment deciding the suit on the whole case held that the document was inadmissible for want of stamp. That view, however, has not prevailed with the lower appellate Court. That Court indeed agrees that the document was inadmissible for want of stamp but it holds that as the document was as a matter of fact let in and exhibited as a piece of evidence by the Subordinate Judge at the trial, its admissibility cannot be objected to at any subsequent stage of the case. In so holding that Court has practically given to the expression ' admitted in evidence ' in Section 36 of the Stamp Act a meaning which is erroneou...
Jainabai Vs. R.D. Sethna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR341
Beaman, J.1. This is a suit by the plaintiffs to enforce an alleged gift contained in a deed of 31st July 1902.2. The principal defendants are the receivers of the alleged donor's estate and the mortgagee. The deed, on which the plaintiffs rely, appears to be a voluntary settlement in common form containing the usual revocation clause. The gist of the document is that the settlor, Ebrahimbhai Hashambhai, gives the properties therein mentioned to himself and other trustees in trust (1) for himself for life absolutely, (2) upon his death to his widow, Rahmatbai, an annuity of Rs. 500 a month; (3) to his daughter Jainabai, plaintiff No. 1, an annuity of Rs. 750 a month, with various bequests to charitable objects. (4) On the death of the said Rahmatbai, her annuity to be devoted to other charitable purposes and on the death of his daughter Jainabai, an event which has not yet happened, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to be given to hi: grandson MohanBai, the minor plaintiff No. 2, with power t< the...
Piraji Laxman Mali Vs. Ganpati Ramji Mali
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR378
N.G. Chandavarkar, J.1. The suit was brought by the appellant to redeem certain mortgages. The plaintiff alleged that the amounts of the mortgages were for past debts except the last mortgage, and that that was for interest due on the previous amounts. The plaintiff claimed relief in the suit as an agriculturist under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act. The respondent pleaded that all the mortgages were for cash advances. The suit was fixed for disposal for the 20th of November 1908. On that date the parties appearing by their pleaders asked for and obtained an adjournment upon the ground that they were going to effect a compromise. On the day fixed they appeared again and put in a compromise embodying certain terms except as to interest and costs, and the Court was asked to pass a decree in terms of the compromise, and also to give its own direction on the question of interest and as to costs. Accordingly the Subordinate Judge who heard the suit passed a decree in accordance with ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›