Mumbai Court August 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.
Wana Ravji Vs. Natu Murha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR818
Heaton, J.1. The decree with which we are here concerned stated as follows: 'The property in dispute belongs to the plaintiff by right of ownership. In the present matter the plaintiff should by the 10th day of April in the year 1909 pay to the defendants in all Rs. 100, namely, one hundred for costs &c.; If the moneys are not paid by the plaintiff as agreed upon the property in dispute will remain with the defendants by right of ownership and the plaintiff will have no right of ownership over the same.'2. The payment required was not made on or before the 10th April, but was made into Court on the 14th April. On these facts both the lower Courts have held that the payment was not in time and was not of avail to satisfy the requirements of the decree. The plaintiff, who has appealed, urges that she had the option of paying to the defendants or of paying into Court: that she chose the latter method and as the Court was closed from 10th to 13th April and she paid into Court on the 14th i...
Gaurishankar Kirpashankar Joshi Vs. Hiralal Ramchandra Dave
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR822
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. It would be unnecessary to consider whether the finding of the Court below that the document (mortgage bond) in dispute is not proved is erroneous in law by reason of the fact that that Court has recorded that finding under the impression that the Transfer of Property Act applies to the document, if the decree can be supported on the ground of the Court's findings on the other issues raised. Those findings are that assuming the document sued on to be genuine, it is not supported by consideration; that the plaintiffs case as to his title derived under an assignment from defendant 4 is not true; and that the document was got up by the plaintiff and defendant 4 for the purpose of defeating the rights of defendant 5 and defrauding him.2. It is contended before us by Mr. Gokuldas for the appellant that the finding as to consideration and also as to the assignment should not be accepted by us in second appeal, because in the Court of first instance, so far as the...
Chanmalapa Chenbasapa Tenguikai Vs. Abdul Vahab Muhamed Hussein
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1910
Reported in: (1910)12BOMLR977
N.G. Chandavarkar, Kt., J.1. The only question argued on this appeal is one of limitation, and it is, whether the words 'a Court of first instance' and 'a Court of appeal,' in Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, include a foreign Court, such as one in a Native State, falling within that description.2. The question has arisen under the following circumstances. The appellant brought a suit and obtained a decree against the respondent in the Court of the District Judge of Shivmoga in the Native State of Mysore. On appeal to the Chief Court of that State, the decree was reversed and the suit dismissed, on the ground that the Court at Shivmoga had no jurisdiction, as the cause of action had arisen in British India.3. The appellant then filed this suit in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge at Dharwar. The suit was on the face of it barred by limitation, but the appellant, relying on Section 14 of the Limitation Act, claimed to exclude, from the period prescribed by that Act ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›