Skip to content

Mumbai Court June 1915 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.

Jun 08 1915

Rajwant Prasad Pande Vs. Mahant Ram Ratan Gir

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jun-08-1915

Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR754

Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the 23rd February 1911, of the High Court of Judicature for the North-Western Provinces (Allahabad), which reversed a decree, dated the 17th August 1909 of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur. The Court of first instance allowed the plaintiffs' claim. On appeal the claim was dismissed.2. The object of the present suit is, by its terms, declared to be three-fold. But upon examination the substantial and only object is for a declaration in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants to the effect that the plaintiffs are no party to a certain order which was passed ex facie against them on the 22nd September 1902. Further declarations are asked that the decree is ineffectual, and null and void against them, and so forth. In substance, as has been said, the object of the present suit is for a declaration that a decree pronounced by a Court of competent jurisdiction on the 22nd September 1902, and bearing to apply to t...


Jun 03 1915

The Secretary of State Vs. Bai Rajbai

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jun-03-1915

Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR730

Atkinson, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from preliminary and final decrees of the High Court of Judicature of Bombay, dated respectively the 16th of April 1909, and nth of April 1911, modifying a decree of the District Judge of Ahmedabad, dated the 30th of November 1907, in Suit No. 7 of 1898 in his Court.2. The question in issue in the action for an injunction, out of which these appeals have arisen, is whether the plaintiff, like her male ancestors, is not entitled to the continued possession, management and enjoyment of a certain village called Charodi about 2,200 acres in extent, situated in the pargana Viramgam, in the district of Ahmedabad, in the province of Gujarat. In her plaint she bases her right on her absolute ownership of this village. In argument before this Board and in the judgments of the Courts below her right has been also based apparently upon the following title, namely, this, that though her ancestors took from time to time several leases of this village fr...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial