Mumbai Court April 1911 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.
Emperor Vs. Ranchhod Gokal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR499
Chandavarkar, J. 1. Both the conviction and sentence in this case must be confirmed. The Sessions Judge and the Assessors have believed the evidence of the witnesses Jetha, Fulbhai and Lallu, who give direct evidence as to the murder. All that is urged against them is that they had not told anyone of what they had seen until the Police came upon the scene: but they have explained that they were afraid and the unwillingness of people of this class to come forward to depose to an offence committed in their presence lest they should themselves get into trouble is well-known. Further the evidence of Diwali, widow of the deceased man, an unwilling witness for the prosecution, corroborates to some extent the case for the prosecution. It shows that the present appellant . Ranchhod and the deceased, his brother, were not on good terms, because the former was on terms of criminal intimacy with her and that the appellant's conduct was suspicious when she made enquiries of him as to the disappear...
Husainkhan Sardarkhan Vs. Gulabkhatum
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR511
Chandavarkar, J. 1. Two points of law have been argued in this second appeal. First, it is contended that the District Judge is wrong in holding the whole amount of the dower to be-prompt and the decision of this Court in Fatma v. Sadruddtn (1865) 2 B.H.C. 291 is relied upon by the appellant's pleader in support of the contention. There it was held that, where no specific amount of dower had been declared eligible, and there was no evidence of what was customary, it was not an error in law for the Court of facts to hold one-third only of the whole amount to be exigible during the life of the husband, the remaining two-thirds being payable on his death. The decision in question lays down no inelastic principle of law, but merely points out what, in the circumstances of the case, was an equitable rule to follow. The learned Judge is, therefore, right in holding upon the facts of the present case that the whole is exigible.2. Next, it is urged that in the case of prompt dower, the right o...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›