Skip to content

Mumbai Court July 1916 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.

Jul 20 1916

Mahomed Syedol AriffIn Vs. Yeoh Ooi Gark

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jul-20-1916

Reported in: (1917)19BOMLR157

Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and order of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements, dated March 2, 1915. This judgment and order affirmed the judgment and order of the Court of first instance, pronounced on September 19, 1914.2. The action was brought by the respondent, who is a moneylender, against the appellant for certain sums of money, amounting in all to 29,521 dollars. To this action the appellant lodged a defence that at the time of the transactions sued upon he was an infant.3. The facts briefly stated are these: On March 21, 1912, the appellant's father died, the appellant being his second son. On October 16, 1912, December 13, 1912 and January 17, 1913, respectively, he executed in favour of the respondent three mortgages over his one-twelfth share of his late father's property. The amounts in the mortgages were 6000 dollars, 8000 dollars and 10,000 dollars. Interest was stipulated for at 15 per cent. per annum for the first six mont...


Jul 20 1916

Janaki Ammal Vs. Narayanasami Aiyer

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jul-20-1916

Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR856

Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Madras of the 23rd August, 1912, modifying the decree of the Subordinate Judge of 'Mayavaram, dated the a8th October, 1907.2. The suit was brought with reference to the estate of one Ramasami Iyer, of Konerirajapuram, who died intestate on the 24th June, 1906. It is not disputed that the widow holds the property under the Hindu law as ' a widow's estate.' The mother of the late owner is the person entitled to succeed should she survive this widow. On the expiry of these lives the estate will descend to the next reversionary heir of the deceased.3. The rule of the Hindu law with regard to the nature of the widow's estate may have been subject to various forms of expression, but in substance it is not doubtful. Her right is of the nature of a right of property; her position is that of owner; her powers in that character are, however, limited; but, to use the familiar language of Mayne's Hindu Law, paragraph 625...


Jul 17 1916

Nanda Lal Dhur Biswas Vs. Jagat Kishore Acharjya Chowdhuri

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jul-17-1916

Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR868

Chancellor, J.1. These six consolidated appeals arise out of six suits commenced by one Nanda LalDhur Biswas and Jogesh Chandra Chakravati, claiming against the various defendants possession of certain lands. The first-named plaintiff has died since the institution of the suits, and his representatives, together with the other plaintiff, are the present appellants.2. The property in question formed the whole estate of one Braja Narayan, deceased, and was the subject of certain conveyances executed at various dates by one or both of his two widows. The first-named plaintiff alleged that he was the adopted son of Braja Narayan, but this claim, though supported by the Subordinate Judge, who decided in favour of the plaintiffs in all the suits, was rejected by the High Court, from whose judgment these appeals are brought, but it is not necessary to consider this question unless the conveyances can be set aside. Now it is clear that in the circumstances these conveyances cannot be supported...


Jul 14 1916

NobIn Chandra Barua Vs. Chandra Madhab Barua

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jul-14-1916

Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR1022

Parmoor, J. 1. The appellants' father, Nanda Kumar Barua, was the owner of one moiety and' his uncles, the respondent and Chandicharan Barua, were the owners of the other moiety of a lakhraj estate in the district of Goalpara comprising a large tract of forest land. In or about the year 1894 Nanda Kumar Barua entered into an agreement with the respondent under which the respondent was appointed agent for the purpose of collecting rents and profits from the forest land, in order gradually to pay off a heavy debt, rendering accounts of his management, from time to time, to Nanda Kumar Barua. Nanda Kumar Barua died in July 1899, He left three sons, the appellants, two of whom were minors, For about two years after the death of the appellants' father, the respondent managed the property on the same terms as before. The agency was terminated by a notice dated the 16th January, 1902- In September 19041116 appellants commenced a suit against the respondent claiming a declaration that the resp...


Jul 13 1916

Emperor Vs. Shivbharan Ayodhyaprasad

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jul-13-1916

Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR682; 35Ind.Cas.815

1. The applicant here has been convicted under Section 289 of the Indian Penal Code in that he negligently omitted to take such order with a bull in his possession as was sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from the animal.2. Mr. Pilgaonkar has contended, and we think rightly, that the essential ingredient of this offence is that there should be probable danger to human life or limb from the negligence shown in the custody of the animal. That is the point upon which Section 289 turns, and that is the point to which Magistrates in administering this section should devote their attention.3. We are not clear that the point received sufficient attention in this case where the evidence goes to show no more than that the applicant's bull had on previous occasions fought with the complainant's bull. But in view of this evidence and the other circumstances on the record we think it right in this particular case to draw for ours...


Jul 11 1916

Mirza Sadik HusaIn Khan Vs. Nawab Saiyed Hashim Ali Khan

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jul-11-1916

Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR1037

Atkinson, J.1. These are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh, Lucknow, both dated the 13th November, 1911, which reversed in part and modified in part two decrees, each dated the 25th October, 1909, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of K Lucknow.2. The first of the two suits in which those last-mentioned decrees were made, namely, that numbered 76 of 1907, the appeal in which is No. 121 of 1913, was instituted by Mirza Sadik Husain Khan, the appellant in both the present appeals to enforce a mortgage dated the 26th June, 1900, executed in his favour by the third respondent in the first appeal, namely Nawab Ummat-ul-Fatima, in her own right, and also as guardian of her two sons, then minors, the first and second respondents in the first appeal, to secure the repayment of 20,000 rupees admittedly advanced by the mortgagee to this lady, with interest at one per cent, per mensem.3. The second of these suits, namely, that numbered 51 o...


Jul 03 1916

Carolina Dos Santos Vs. Dominic Joseph Pinto

Court: Mumbai

Decided on: Jul-03-1916

Reported in: AIR1916Bom167; (1916)18BOMLR715; 36Ind.Cas.227

Beaman, J.1. The plaintiff sues the defendants as heirs and representatives of the deceased Pascoal Pinto, on the ground that at the date of her marriage with the said Pascoal Pinto he was a domiciled subject of Goa in Portuguese India and that being so their marriage with all its legal incidents must be governed and determined by the law of Portugual. This being done she alleges that certain rights will then be adjudged due to her, and seeks to recover accordingly. The defendant No. 3, one of her step-sons, supports her case in the main and contends on his own behalf, that at the date of the marriage of his mother with the deceased Pascoal Pinto, Pascoal Pinto was a domiciled subject of Goa in Portuguese India and that in like manner with the plaintiff he, the defendant No. 3, was entitled to certain rights and benefits under the Portuguese law.2. The defence is that Pascoal Pinto was, at the time of his two marriages, with the mother of defendant No. 3 in 1871 and with the plaintiff ...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial