Mumbai Court January 1918 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.
Bai Nematbu Vs. Bai Nematullabu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1918
Reported in: AIR1918Bom228; (1918)20BOMLR434
Stanley Batchelor, Kt., Acting C.J.1. This is an appeal brought by the original 1st defendant against an order made by the learned First Class Subordinate Judge granting to the plaintiff a review of the Subordinate Judge's judgment. I am of opinion that the learned Judge below was perfectly right in allowing this application for review of judgment, and indeed I think that he was compelled ex debito justitice to make such an order in the circumstances of this case. The plaintiff, who was the applicant for the review, was a Mahomedan female, belonging, therefore, to that category of persons, who, according to a well-known description by a Chief Justice of this Court, are barely to be described as sui juris. It is plain on the record, and indeed it has formed part of Mr. Setalvad's argument for the appellant, that this Mahomedan lady's legal interests were not prosecuted by her advisers with all the carefulness which the circumstances demanded. It is that want of carefulness which has cau...
Hariram Kisniram Vs. Shivabakas Ramchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1918
Reported in: (1918)ILR42Bom333
Beaman, J.1. Adopting the findings of fact such as they are of the Courts below, it appears that in 1893 or thereabouts, roughly nineteen years before suit, the defendant was a tenant at any rate of the house, of which the plaintiff has now taken a permanent lease. While a tenant he built his own house on the adjoining land and put up a staircase which is the subject-matter of this suit. In all probability the pillar, driven into the land supporting the staircase, was contemporaneous with the rest of the structure, though the plaintiff has contended, or at any rate, suggested, that this pillar was put up by his immediate predecessor-in-title only some nine years before suit. In 1905, the plaintiff took a permanent lease of the house which had been in the defendant's occupation in 1893. He alleges that in 1912 he asked the defendant to pull down the staircase. The defendant refused. Hence his cause of action. He prayed for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the sta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›