Mumbai Court August 1920 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.
F.J.R. Kerwick Vs. K.M. Kerwick
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1920
Reported in: (1921)23BOMLR730
Lord Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree dated the 19th June, 1913, of the Chief Court of Lower Burma (Civil Appeal side) reversing a decree of the original side of the said Court dated the 29th November, 1917. The suit out of which the appeal arises was brought by the appellant, who is the husband of the respondent, to have it declared, first, that two houses, named respectively Kildare and Kerry, situated at Rangoon, the sites of which the appellant had purchrsed out of capital of his own or borrowed and had procured to be, by two deeds, conveyed to the respondent, upon which sites the appellant had at his own expense erected two dwelling houses, were held by her as his benamidar and that he was the true owner of the same; and second, that the respondent might be ordered to convey these houses to the appellant within, such time as to the Court might seem fit. The respondent by her answer admitted that the sites of the said house had been so purchased and conveyed to her, a...
Manilal Girdhar Patel Vs. Nathalal Mahasukhram Vyas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1920
Reported in: AIR1921Bom35; (1920)22BOMLR1446
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the plaint house and Rs. 125 rent due under a registered lease dated the 18th of May 1915. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the sale-deed was effected through fraud in order to defraud the creditors, that the lease was inoperative and that the sale was declared to be ineffective in a miscellaneous application filed by the plaintiff.2. It appears that after the sale-deed had been executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff, the property was attached by a creditor of the defendant. The plaintiff took proceedings under Order XXI for removing tie attachment. But in summary proceedings the Court came to the conclusion that the sale-deed was inoperative as it was effected to defraud the creditors. Plaintiff then filed Suit No. 86 of 11)1916 to set aside this order. That suit was withdrawn on the 15th. of August 1916, because defendant settled with the judgment-creditor and the attachment w...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›