Mumbai Court July 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.
Ladkabai Vs. Navivahu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom124; (1915)17BOMLR783
Beaman, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff, Ladkabai, widow of the deceased, Lalji Valji, sues Navivahu, widow of the deceased Haridas Dharamsey, to recover from her (1) the entire estate of the said deceased Haridas Dharamsey; (2) specific sums of money; (3) ornaments.2. The plaintiff's allegation put shortly is that her husband Lalji survived the deceased Haridas Dharamsey, and upon certain grounds, which I shall have to give more in detail was in law his sole heir; that she, therefore, the plaintiff Ladkabai, on the death of her husband, Lalji, is entitled to a widow's estate in the whole property. Further, she contends that by a writing of the 31st of October 1905. Haridas Dharamsey declared a trust of Rs. 20,000 in favour of herself and her husband, to which in any event she is now entitled. As to the specific sum of Rs. 5000 and the ornaments, the former is admitted; and about the latter I need say nothing in this judgment. Should it be necessary to go into that point, it would be m...
The Advocate General Vs. Jimbabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1915
Reported in: (1915)17BOMLR799
Beaman, J.1. The substantial questions to be answered here are : (1) whether a Cutchi Memon is entitled to dispose of more than one-third of his property by will; (2) whether certain bequests to charity in this will are void or are good and valid bequests. Implied in these questions is a consideration of the long-standing controversy as to the precise extent to which the sect of Cutchi Memons is governed not by the Mahomedan but by the Hindu law.2. When the case came on for trial it was hoped that it might be made a test case for the settlement of several points upon which a difference of opinion still exists in the mixed law administered by this High Court to the two sects of Khojas and Cutchi Memons; and it was with that object in view that all the learned counsel concerned spared no efforts to collect and bring before the Court all available material and directed their arguments to an extensive and searching survey of this entire field of law.3. Ever since Sir Erskine Perry's famous...
Usmanmiya Abdullamiya Vs. Vali Mahomed Husainbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1915
Reported in: AIR1915Bom228; (1915)17BOMLR693; 30Ind.Cas.904
Batchelor, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by one Sardarbibi as the widow of Husseinbhai Abdulabhai to recover possession of her one-fourth share of the deceased's property. Husseinbhai died in June 1904. He left no issue, but he left a widow, the present plaintiff, and two brothers, the 1st and 2nd defendants. The 1st and 2nd defendants did not dispute the claim of the plaintiff, but the 3rd defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit and claimed to be the acknowledged son of the deceased Husseinbhai. Both the lower Courts have acceded to the 3rd defendant's contention, and the present appeal is brought, not by the plaintiff, but by the 1st and 2nd defendants who are represented before us by Mr. Rao.2. The learned pleader for the appellants has taken two points in his clients' interests. The first of those points is that a Mahomedan cannot legally acknowledge as his son a person who is shown to be the son of another man. It appears to me that this legal propositi...
Usmanmiya Abdullamiya and anr. Vs. Valli Mahomed Husainbhai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom28
Batchelor, J.1. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by one Sardarbibi as the widow of Husseinbhai Abdulabhai to recover possession of her one-fourth share of the deceased's property. Husseinbhai died in June 1904. He left no issue, but he left a widow, the present plaintiff, and two brothers, the 1st and 2nd defendants. The 1st and 2nd defendants did not dispute the claim of the plaintiff, but the 3rd defendant resisted the plaintiff's suit and claimed to be the acknowledged son of the deceased Husseinbhai. Both the lower Courts have acceded to the 3rd defendant's contention, and the present appeal is brought, not by the plaintiff, but by the 1st and 2nd defendants, who are represented before us by Mr. Rao.2. The learned pleader for the appellants has taken two points in his clients' interests. The first of those points is that a Mahomedan cannot legally acknowledge as his son a person who is shown to be the son of another man. It appears to me that this legal proposit...
Mukunchand Rajaram Balia Vs. Nihalchand Gurmukhrai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1915
Reported in: (1916)ILR40Bom517
Beaman, J.1. This case has been brought, as counsel stated, by way of a test case. The point upon which I understood, at first, that it was meant to be a test case was, whether the contract between the parties was to be read as containing a clause precluding either of them from cancelling the contract in any event, and, if so, whether that was a good agreement. As the case developed it appeared as though the decision of the Court were required upon another point, namely, whether the plaintiff by giving the railway receipt on the 19th of March 1914 had thereby complied with the condition of the contract made between the parties requiring tender by the vendor. The contract is a cotton contract entered into on the 25th of January 1914 for the purchase by the defendant from the plaintiff of 200 bales of cotton--March delivery--between the 15th and 25th, and expressed to be, in all details, governed by the Rules of the Bombay Cotton Trade Association, subject only to this exception that in ...
Mukanchand Rajaram Balia Vs. Nihalchand Gurmukhrai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-02-1915
Reported in: AIR1916Bom268; 32Ind.Cas.948
Beaman, J.1. This case has been brought, as Counsel stated, by way of a test case. The point upon which I understood at first that it was meant to be a test case was, whether the contract between the parties was to be read as containing a clause precluding either of them from cancelling the contract in any event, and, if so, whether that was a good agreement. As the case developed it appeared as though the decision of the Court were required upon another point, namely, whether the plaintiff by giving the railway receipt on the 19th of March 1914 had thereby complied with the condition of the contract made between the parties requiring tender by the vendor. The contract is a cotton contract entered into on the 25th of January 1914 for the purchase by the defendant from the plaintiff of 200 bales of cotton-March delivery-between the 15th and 25th, and expressed to be in all details governed by the Rules of the Bombay Cotton Trade Association, subject only to this exception that in no cir...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›