Mumbai Court August 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.
Kashibai Ramchandra Ghatge Vs. Tatya Genu Pawar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom312; (1916)18BOMLR740; 36Ind.Cas.546
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are these. The plaintiff is the daughter of one Nana, who was the son of Bapurao bin Vithalrao. On Nana's death, his father Bapurao took an absolute estate in the property by survivorship. Bapurao, however, survived his son only four days. On his death, his widow Laxmibai became entitled for a widow's estate. Bapurao before his death recommended Laxmibai to adopt the Ist defendant, who is Bapurao's brother's son. At the same time there was a grand-daughter, the present plaintiff, to be provided for. Thus at one and the same time Laxmibai by two documents made the adoption of the Ist defendant, and also executed what is termed a will, devising certain property to the plaintiff. The Ist defendant did not appear at the trial of the suit, and the contesting defendants now are alienees from the Ist defendant.2. In the Court of first instance, Mr. V.P. Raverkar, in a careful judgment decreed the plaintiff's su...
The Indian Specie Bank Ltd. Vs. Nagindas Hurjivandas Nanavati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom294; (1916)18BOMLR689; 35Ind.Cas.628
Macleod, J.1. This is a summary suit filed by the Indian Specie Bank (in liquidation) by its liquidator against Nagindas Hurjivandas Nanavati, who, on the 31st of July 1913, drew a bill of exchange for Rs. 10,000 on Maganlal Motilal payable to the Indian Specie Bank or order at their office in Bombay twelve months after date. On the 10th of August 1913, the bill was accepted by Maganlal Motilal. The bill fell due on the 3rd of August 1914, and, as it was payable at the Bank and the acceptor did not attend to satisfy his obligations on the bill, it became thereby dishonoured. On the 4th of August, notice of dishonour was given to the drawer. The defendant applied for leave to defend the suit and, in support of his application, filed an affidavit on the 23rd of February 1916 He alleged that the amount due by the acceptor had been duly tendered to the plaintiff but it had not been accepted and he claimed to be entitled to bring in Maganlal Motilal as third party. On the 25th of February, ...
Kavasji Sorabji Aibada Vs. Bai Dinbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-08-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom315(1); (1916)ILR40Bom666; 36Ind.Cas.373
1. An executor called upon by citation to accept or renounce is clearly compellable, if he accepts, to take out Probata within a limited time. If he does not do so, Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed may be granted to any competent applicant. This is the principle of the decision in the cases of Motibhai v. Karsandas Narayandas 19 B. 123 and Bayabai Tapidas v. Damodar Tapidas 20 B. 227. The lower Court has decided this as a preliminary point against the applicant and decided it wrongly.2. There is a further question of fact to be answered. The opponent denies that the applicant is a beneficiary under the Will or has any interest whatever in the estate of the deceased. If that be so, he would clearly have no locus standi in any such proceedings as these. But that question must be dealt with by the learned Judge below.3. We set aside his order and remand the application to be disposed of in accordance with the foregoing observations.4. Costs to abide the result....
Mota Holiappa Vs. Vithal Gopal Habbu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom277; (1916)18BOMLR712; 36Ind.Cas.74
Beaman, J.1. We are clearly of opinion that if this suit were not res judicata by the decision of the Suit of 1910, the B 90 plaintiff's claim would be barred by limitation. The only substantial question therefore is whether the present suit is res judicata. The point arises in this way. In 1900, the defendant obtained a mulgeni lease from the manager of the temple, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff. In 1910, the plaintiff sued, the suit taking the form of ejectment, to recover possession of the land from the defendant on the ground that the mulgeni lease was bad arid no longer binding on him and that for breach of condition of the annual lease therefore the tenant was liable to immediate eviction. The plaintiff prayed for two quite distinct reliefs as is made abundantly clear from the judgment and the final order. Those reliefs were, first, that it should be declared that the mulgeni lease of 1900 was invalid and not binding upon the plaintiff; second, that the plaintiff was t...
ibrahim Bhura Jamnu Vs. Isa Rasul Jamnu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom159; (1916)18BOMLR810; 36Ind.Cas.715
Beaman, J.1. This is a troublesome case, because, en a first view, it seems as though there are two concurrent findings of fact in the Courts below either of which would be fatal to the plaintiff's case. The first of these is that there was no consideration for the conveyance upon which the plaintiff relies, bearing date the 26th February 1898. But, in our opinion, having regard to the true character of the document and the relations subsisting between the parties thereto, it stood in no need of consideration, and the question thus raised and answered as a question of fact, bearing upon the operativeness of that document in both the Courts below was a question which never should have been raised at all. The nominal vendor was the husband of the plaintiff and in form he sells two houses to his wife for what was then owing to her as her meher or dowry. The' sum thus owing at the time is stated to be Rs. 1,700 (babashai). A document of that kind is, on the face of it, a document of advanc...
Baslingappa Virbhadrappa Huddar Vs. Chandrappa Basawantrao Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom197; (1916)18BOMLR695; 35Ind.Cas.860
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The plaintiffs are the Vatandar Desai Inamdars of Tallur in the Belgaum District, and they brought this suit, as the transcript of the plaint sets out, to recover possession of certain lands from the defendants on the footing that those lands had been, by the plaintiffs' ancestors, granted to the defendants' ancestors for the performance of certain services, which services the plaintiffs no longer required of the defendants. It was stated in the plaint that ' the services not being required in the present times, and the lands being resumable, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover them.' And it was then set forth that a notice to quit was served on the head of the defendants' family, and that the defendants had refused to surrender. Therefore this suit was brought.2. The present appeal is by the defendants whose ancestors were grantees of the lands in suit from the plaintiffs' ancestors. The main question involved in the appeal is whether, assuming...
Musammat Hamira Bibi and Musammat Amina Bibi Vs. Musammat Zubaida Bibi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR999
Parker, J.1. A short statement of the facts which have given rise to this litigation will explain the point for determination involved in these consolidated appeals.One Shaikh Inayat Ullah, a Mahomedan inhabitant of the district of Gorakhpur in the United Provinces of India, died in March 1892, leaving him. surviving'a widow and daughter named respectively Zubaida Bibi and Najm-un-nisa; a sister Hamira Bibi; and two brothers, Khadim Hossain and Ihsan Ullah, all of whom became entitled under the Sunni law, to which Inayat Ullah was subject, to certain specific shares in his estate. Besides the widow's share of one-eighth, Zubaida was entitled to her unpaid dower. This has been : found in a previous proceeding to have amounted to the large sum of one lakh of rupees. The other heirs of Inayat Ullah not being in a position to pay this sum without apparently alienating at least a considerable part of the estate, allowed the widow to take or remain in possession of the whole to satisfy her c...
The Secretary of State for India Vs. Maharaja Radha Kishore Manikya Ba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1916
Reported in: (1916)18BOMLR1027
Dunedin, J.1. The-present suit was instituted by the Maharajah of Tippera to regain possession of certain plots of land in Southern Sylhet. The defendants are the Secretary of State for India and certain Tea Companies, who in virtue of leases granted by the Government are at present in possession of the lands in dispute.2. There were several plots in controversy, but the judgment of the Court below has been so far acquiesced in that the only ones still in controversy before this Board were those known as plots 2, 3, and 4.3. The Maharajah of Tippera is an independent ,chief whose territory borders upon and adjoins the district of Sylhet. The configuration of the country is that there are several parallel ranges or spurs of hills going northward from the higher ground of independent Tippera, and forming valleys between the spurs. Originally the Rajahs of Tippera claimed that all the hill country to the end of the spurs was independent territory. Owing to this claim, Lieutenant Fisher wa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›