Mumbai Court May 1916 Judgments
Musammat Girja Bai Vs. Sadashiv Dhundiraj
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-19-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR621
Ameer Ali, J.1. This appeal from two judgments and decrees of the Judicial Commissioner's Court in the Central Provinces of India arises out of a suit brought by one Harihar since deceased, on the 21st October, 1908, in the Court of the District Judge of Nagpur. The object of the suit was to obtain a declaration of his right to a one-third share in certain movable and immovable properties, which till then had been held as appertaining to a joint undivided Hindu family, of which he had been a member, a decree for partition, and other ancillary reliefs.2. Harihar died on the 17th June, 1909, during the pendency of his suit, and the question in the case is whether at the time of his death he was separated from the joint family. If he was, his share would be inherited by his widow Girja Bai, the appellant; if not, the defendants, respondents in this appeal, would take it by survivorship.3. The facts of the case are simple, and may be stated briefly. Bapuji, the common ancestor, left severa...
Tag this Judgment!Mahomed Ismail Ariff Vs. Hajee Ahmed Moola Dawood and Mahomed Suleiman ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR611
Ameer Ali, J.1. The suit which gives rise to these consolidated appeals was brought in the Chief Court of Lower Burma in its original civil jurisdiction, under the provisions of section 539 of Act XIV of 1882, for the appointment of trustees and the settlement of a scheme of management in respect of a moique, situated in the city of Rangoon. The plaintiffs in the action are five Mahommedan worshippers at the mosque, who trace their origin to a place called Rander, said to be a suburb of the city of Surat in the Bombay Presidency, and in the earlier stages of these proceedings they appear to have claimed it as a Randeria mosque. It is, however, conceded now that it is a public mosque dedicated to the performance of religious worship by all Sunni Mahommedans without restriction as to place of origin, and that it is commonly known as the Sunni Juma Musjid.2. To explain the contest between the parties it is necessary to give a short summary of the circumstances that have led to this unfort...
Tag this Judgment!Malraju Lakshmi Venkayyamma Vs. Venkata Narsinha Appa Rao
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-15-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR651
Shaw, J.1. These are consolidated appeals against a judgment and decree, dated the 26th November, 1909, pronounced by the Chief Justice and two Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in an appeal under Letters Patent against a decree of the High Court dated the 16th November, 1908. The two Judges constituting the High Court differed in opinion, with the result that a decree pronounced by the District Judge of Godaveri, dated the 3rd November, 1904, had been affirmed in the original appeal. The Letters Patent appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed. The form which the dismissal took will be after wards referred to.2. The suit was brought with the main object described in the first prayer of the plaint,-to the effect that it be declared that the plaintiff is entitled to the village of Repudi, and that defendants do put the plaintiff in possession of the same.3. Rajah Narayya, who died in 1864, was the owner of an extensive zemindary of Nidadavole. He was survived by two w...
Tag this Judgment!Maharaja Ram Narayan Singh Vs. Adhindra Nath Mukhurji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-12-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR862
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of the High Court at Calcutta, dated the 30th August, 1911, which set aside a preliminary decree of the Subordinate Judge of Hazaribagh, dated the 30th June, 1910, in a suit brought upon a mortgage, and remanded the case to the Court of the Subordinate Judge to be dealt with in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment of the High Court. The respondents, who are the plaintiffs, have not appeared.2. The deed upon which the suit was brought was made on the 14th April, 1896, by Maharaja Nam Narayan Singh in favour of Rai Babu Jadu Nath Mukhurji, a Government Pleader, who had been employed as a pleader by the Maharaja. The consideration was Rs. 1,30,000 which were advanced by Jadu Nath Mukhurji to Maharaja Nam Narayan Singh. The principal moneys, together with interest, at the rate of 10 annas per centum per mensem were to be repaid as provided by the deed, by and out of the rents and cesses of certain Mokurari villages of Maha...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›