Mumbai Court February 1914 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.
Musammat Bakhtawar Begam Vs. Musammat Husaini Khanam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR344
Ameer Ali, J.1. The suit which has given rise to these con-Khanam solidated appeals from a decree and judgment of the High Court of Allahabad was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Cawnpore for the redemption of a mortgage executed so long ago as the 6th of January 1830. The suit was brought on the 6th of January 1899, and the only and vital question presented at the Bar for determination in this case is whether the claim is barred by the Statute of Limitation (Indian Act XV of 1877).2. The plaintiff Husaini Khanam alleges that on the 6th of January 1830 her father, Aga Fateh Ali, in conjunction with another relative named Aman Ali, executed a mortgage by way of conditional sale in respect of twelve villages lying within the district of Cawnpore in favour of one Ata Ullah Khan, since deceased. The other plaintiffs are persons who have ' acquired title from Husaini Khanam. The principle defendant in the action was one Ali Husain Khan, who was...
Lala Birj Lal Vs. Musammat Inda Kunwar and
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR352
Ameer Ali, J.1. The suits which have given rise to this consolidated appeal from three decrees of the High Court of Allahabad relate to a property called Mouzah Khilchipur lying in the district of Rae Bareilly in the United Provinces of India.2. The maouzah is now in the possession of the defendant-appellant under a usufruetuary mortgage executed in 1871 in favour of his ancestor Madhoram by two Hindu ladies, Rukmin and Nimma, and one Dhal Chand. Other titles were created subsequently in favour of Madhoram or his son Darbari Lal to some of which reference will be made in the course of this judgment. But the plaintiffs' claim to possession depends principally on their right to redeem the mortgage of 1871.3. Mouzah Khilchipur belonged originally to one Kundan Lal; he died many years ago, leaving two sons Mihin Lal and Sham Lal who, it is not disputed, were joint in food and estate. Mihin Lal died in 1853, an Sham Lal in 1859, leaving his widow Nimma and a nephew named Lila Dhar, Mihin La...
Mangaldas N. Motivalia Vs. Abdul Razak Haji Sulaiman Abdul Wahed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-03-1914
Reported in: AIR1914Bom17; (1914)16BOMLR224
Macleod, J.1. The first plaintiff obtained decrees for large amounts in two Suits, Nos. 404 of 1911 and 707 of 1912, filed against one Abdul Razak Haji Sulaiman. The second plaintiff obtained a decree against the same person in Suit No. 719 of 1912. Warrants for the arrest of Abdul Razak were issued in execution of the said decrees, and on the 4th January 1913 he was arrested by the Sheriff's bailiff. It is alleged that Abdul Razak then proposed that he would execute a legal first mortgage of all his share, right, title and interest in the ancestral properties belonging to the joint Cutchi Memon family of which he was a member as a condition for the plaintiffs agreeing to release him from arrest.2. Accordingly Abdul Razak signed an agreement undertaking to execute such a legal mortgage. On the 9th January a draft mortgage was sent to Abdul Razak for approval but Abdul Razak then alleged that he signed the agreement under threats, coercion, undue influence and pressure while he was unde...
Bijoy Gopal Mukerji Vs. Girindanath Mukerji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1914
Reported in: (1914)16BOMLR425
Moulton, J.1. The substantial question in this appeal is the validity of an Ijara executed on the 7th September 1863, for a term of sixty years, by a Hindoo widow named Sayamoni Debi, under circumstances which it will be necessary to refer to in some detail.2. Sayamoni Debi was the widow of Chandra Bhusan Mukerji. Her husband died in 1832 without leaving any issue, making her his sole heiress. The property consisted chiefly of landed property of considerable value.3. Sayamoni was a Purdanasheen lady and probably not very capable of managing a large estate. She appears to have been dispossessed of the property by one of her husband's relatives, Baman Das Mukerji, and was compelled, in 1844, to bring a suit against him and his two brothers, Gouri Pershad and Annoda Pershad, to recover it. This litigation lasted till 1858, when, on appeal to Her Majesty in Council, the rights of Sayamoni to the estate of her husband were finally established. But although this was the case, it is evident t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›