Mumbai Court June 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.
Payne and Co. Vs. Pirojshah Nusserwanji Patel
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-16-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR920; 12Ind.Cas.554
Davar, J.1. This case is an offshoot of case No. 3 of 1910 filed in the Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court by the defendant Pirosha Nusserwanji Patel against his wife Soonabai and which was heard before me in July last. For a correct appreciation of the questions in dispute in this suit, it is necessary to set out shortly the facts and circumstances of that case, The parties at the hearing of this suit agreed that I should treat all the papers in that case as papers before the Court in this suit.2. In the Matrimonial Suit, the defendant in this suit Pirosha charged his wife Soonabai with having committed adultery with the co-respondent therein and prayed for a decree for the dissolution of his marriage with her. Soonabai denied adultery with the co-respondent but admitted that she was compelled to have illicit intercourse with Pirosha's father, that Pirosha knew of this and connived at it and that he had condoned the offence. It was contended on her behalf that if the husband had been guilt...
G.W. Davis Vs. Maung. Shwe Go
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR704
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal arises out of an action brought by the plaintiff-respondent in the Chief Court of Lower Burma in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction to enforce the specific performance of an agreement alleged to have been ' executed by the defendant-appellant on the 4th of April 1906, and in the alternative for damages.2. The first Court dismissed the suit, 'being unable to hold that the agreement set up had been proved.'the Chief Court on appeal has arrived at a totally different conclusion; it has found that the document was signed by the defendant, and it has accordingly reversed the decision of the first Court, and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendant has appealed to His Majesty in Council, and the only question for determination relates to the genuineness of his signature on the agreement in suit,2. Although the parties are at issue on this, the vital point in the case, there is otherwise singular unanimity on the general facts. In the conflict of o...
Sambu Hanmanta Kobal Vs. Nama Narayan Naikde
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR867; 12Ind.Cas.362
Chandavarkar, J.1. The pleadings and the facts found by the Court below may be shortly stated for the purpose of the question of law which has been very carefully argued by both the counsel before us.2. The plaintiff brought the suit to redeem, alleging that he had mortgaged the property in dispute on the 4th of April, 1873, to defendant No. 1st father and that the mortgage was with possession for Rs. 601. Defendant No. 1 in his written statement pleaded that the mortgage had been redeemed, and that, therefore, the suit did not lie as against him. He alleged further that, ever since redemption, the property had been in the possession of defendants 2 to 4. These defendants are appellants before us. The contest, therefore, came really to be between the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. These defendants in their written statement alleged that, on the 25th of November 1878, at the request of the plaintiff himself they had paid off the amount of the mortgage to defendant 1's father, and that...
Ko Tho HnyIn Vs. Ma HnIn I.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR694
Macnaghten, J.1. Their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment under appeal is right. If the appellant had applied for leave to appeal, and his application had been refused, there could not have been any appeal. It is a matter of administration.2. The point was expressly decided at Calcutta Jodoonath Mundul v.Brojo Mohun Ghose ILR (1886) Cal. 174 in the year 1886, and there is no authority impugning that decision. The point was raised there, and it was decided by the High Court that no appeal lies 'from an order refusing to give a decree holder permission to purchase at a sale held in execution of a decree.'3. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal ought to be dismissed. There is no appearance by the respondent so that there will be no order as to ' costs....
Madappa Hegde Vs. Ramkrishna Narayan Bhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1911
Reported in: (1911)13BOMLR698
Macnaghten, J.1. Their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment of the High Court is erroneous. The learned Judges must have been misled by some erroneous translation, because on a certified translation before their Lordships nothing can be clearer than that there is a covenant to pay interest from year to year.2 Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be allowed and the order on appeal reversed, and that the case should go back to the High Court so that the other issues may be dealt with.3. As regards costs the appellants are entitled to them here and in the High Court. The costs in the lower Court will abide the event of the further hearing in the High Court....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›