Mumbai Court November 1912 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.
Azima Bibi Vs. Munshi Shamalanand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-12-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR423
Macnaghten, J.1. This appeal was heard ex parte.2. The appellants are the female members of a Mahommedan family which in matters of worship have adopted the Hindu religion. There is no evidence that there is any custom in the family by which the Mahommedan law in regard to the descent of property has been altered or varied.3. The respondent is a pleader of some standing. He took a mortgage of ancestral property from the male members of the family. He was under the impression that the Hindu law of descent prevailed in the family, and that the female members had no proprietary interest. He made no inquiry of any of the female members or of their husbands. They were purdahnashin ladies and naturally left the management of the property in the hands of the males.4. The respondent brought this suit to enforce his security against the family property, making both the males and the females parties. The Subordinate Judge gave him a decree against the males but dismissed the suit against the fem...
Govindji Viramji Vs. Sakharam Govind
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-09-1912
Reported in: (1912)14BOMLR527
Chandavarkar, J.1. In applying Section 285 of the old Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882) to the facts of the case, the learned District Judge, from whose decree, reversing that of the Assistant Judge, these second appeals have been preferred, has overlooked the provisions of Section 324A of the said Code.2. The salient facts are these. One Ramchandra and others had obtained decrees, Nos. 178 and 179, in the Court of the Second Class Subordinate Judge at Chalisgaon against two persons. Those decree-holders having applied for execution, by attachment and sale of certain lands, that Court transferred the decrees fact the Collector under Section 320 of the Code. The Collector in execution realised Rs. 2,785 and held that, amount for payment to the decree-holder was in the actual custody of the Mamlatdar on behalf of the Collector.3. In the meantime the present respondent, who, had obtained a decree for money against the above mentioned decree-holder Ramchandra Govind and others, in ...
Muhammad Ismail Khan Vs. Lala Sheomukh Rai and Musammat Imtiaz-un-nisa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-08-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR76
Macnaghten, J.1. Their Lordships have considered this case, and they think that the suits should be remanded to the High Court to enable the parties to file evidence with respect to issue No. 3 as to the family custom, Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the decrees appealed from should be set aside. The costs in the Courts below which have been and will be incurred should abide the result of the remand. The respondents will pay the-costs of P.C.these appeals....
Saiyid Abdullah Khan Vs. Saiyid Basharat Husain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-07-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR432
Macnaghten, J.1. The respondents in these consolidated appeals are the representatives of the late plaintiff Saiyid Basharat Husain, now deceased, who was the owner of valuable zamindari property, subject to a mortgage dated the 25th of August 1880, and three further charges tacked to it. The mortgage of 1880 and these further charges are now vested in the appellant.2. The controversy in this case arose out of these mortgage transactions. The original mortgagee was Husain Ali Khan, who made the advances to Basharat Husain, and took the securities in the name of his wife.3. Basharat Husain brought a suit for redemption. His right to redeem was not disputed. The only question was as to the terms and conditions on which the decree for redemption should be made.4. On the part of the appellant it was maintained that the rights of the parties must be governed by the provisions of the mortgage-deed of 1880, which was duly executed and duly registered. On the other hand the mortgagor contended...
Munshi Indar Sahai Vs. Kunwar Shiam Bahadur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-06-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR418
John Edge, J.1. The appellant Munshi Indar Sahai was, with one Madan Mohan Lal deceased, a defendant in a suit which was brought in 1904 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly and related to shares in Mauza Partapur, two other villages, and a house and shops in the city of Bareilly. The appellant was also sole defendant in a suit which was brought in 1905 against him, as manager of a temple, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly, and related to a moiety of Mauza Nawadia Bahmanpuri. The suits were tried by different Subordinate Judges. The suit of 1904 was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge, and on appeal his decision was set aside by the High Court at Allahabad, and the High Court gave the plaintiffs in that suit a decree. From that decree of the High Court one of these consolidated appeals has been brought. In the suit of 1905, the Subordinate Judge gave the plaintiffs in that suit a decree which was affirmed by the decree of the High Court on appeal. From the l...
Ahmedbhai Habibbhai Vs. the Bombay Fire and Marine Insurance Co. Ltd.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-01-1912
Reported in: (1913)15BOMLR19
Moulton, J. 1. This appeal relates to certain arbitration proceedings instituted for the purpose of ascertaining the amount due to the appellant under fire policies taken out by him with the respondent-Company and eighteen other Companies upon a cotton-mill in Bombay known as Victory Mill.2. The facts of the case are very simple and may be briefly stated as follows:-A fire broke out in the Victory Mill on the 14th October 1906, and did very extensive damage. Immediately after the fire the appellant gave notice of his claim to , the Insurance Companies, and they took possession of the premises under powers reserved to them in that behalf and retained possession for a considerable period for salvage purposes during which time they sold and realised certain salvaged property. Possession of the premises was ultimately given back to the appellant, who thereupon made out the amount of j the claim under the policy. The Companies disputed the amount of his claim, and in accordance with the ter...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›