Mumbai Court April 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.
Hormasji Kharsetji Sethna Vs. Dhanjishaw Ratanji Lalcaca
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-06-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR569
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. This is an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Surat who disallowed an application for probate of the will of one Aimai, a Parsi lady, who died on the 3rd of May 1907 and who is alleged to have made the will in question dated the 8th of March 1907. She left a husband who was the opponent in the application for probate and a daughter aged one year and a half. The property which she purported to dispose of was a sum of Rs. 15,000, inherited from her father. By the will she purports to bequeath the whole of it for the benefit of her daughter providing that during her daughter's minority her executors shall hand over the interest of the property so far as may be necessary for her maintenance to the person with whom her daughter may be, that is, either her mother or her husband or any other member of the family, and that after the daughter attains her nineteenth year the whole of the property should be handed over to her. Then the will proceeds as foll...
Narayan Shridhar Date Vs. Pandurang Bapuji Date
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-04-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR471
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The only question that we have to decide in this case is whether the certificate of the Administrator-General granted to the plaintiff entitles him to sue for possession of the plaint property without taking out probate of the will under which he claimed as legatee-a will which was made in Bombay and is therefore subject to the provisions of the Hindu Wills Act.2. If the certificate of the Administrator-General did not entitle him to sue without taking out probate he would be bound by Section 187 of the Indian Succession Act which is incorporated in the Hindu Wills Act to take out probate before he could establish his right as a legatee.3. The certificate of the Administrator-General was granted under Section 36 of the Administrator-General's Act, which states that in cases where the Administrator-General is satisfied that the assets do not exceed one thousand rupees in value, he may, if he thinks fit, if requested so to do by writing, under the hand of the exe...
Maganlal Bhukandas Sheth Vs. Thakurdas Vrijbhukhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR513
Batchelor, J.1. The question involved in this application is whether the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Surat was right in dismissing a suit filed by the present applicant as being barred by limitation. It was a suit brought for damages for the unlawful detention of certain share-certificates. These five shares of a certain Spinning and Weaving Company were bought by the plaintiff from one Chhotalal on the 16th of April 1906. Chhotalal, who had previously purchased these shares from the defendant, directed the defendant to transfer them to the plaintiff. A receipt for the shares was given by the defendant to the plaintiff and the plaintiff signed the receipt, and gave it back to the defendant in order that the defendant should get the share-certificates from the Company and make them over to the plaintiff.2. The defendant got the share-certificates from the Company in May 1906, but thereafter instead of making them over to the plaintiff he retained them in his own custod...
Magan Lal Bhukan Das Sheth Vs. Thakurdas Vrijbhukhandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-01-1910
Reported in: 7Ind.Cas.447
Batchelor, J.1. The question involved in this application is whether the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes of Surat was right in dismissing a suit filed by the present applicant as being barred by limitation. It was a suit brought for damages for the unlawful detention of certain share certificates. These five shares of a certain Spinning and Weaving Company were bought by the plaintiff from one Chhotalal on the 16th of April 1906. Chhotalal, who had previously purchased these shares from the defendant, directed the defendant to transfer them to the plaintiff A receipt foe the shares was given by the defendant to the plaintiff and the plaintiff signed the receipt, and gave it back to the defendant in order that the defendant should get the share-certificates from the Company and make them over to the plaintiff.2. The defendant got the share-certificates from the Company in May 1906, but thereafter instead of making them over to the plaintiff he retained them in his own custody...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›