Mumbai Court October 1922 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.
Gopal Bhimji Avte Vs. Manaji Ganuji Padwal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom163; (1923)25BOMLR134
Lallubhai Shah, Kt., Acting C.J.1. The facts relating to this Second Appeal are these : One Rakhma was the owner of the property in suit. He is said to have disappeared about the year 1898 or 1899, and has not been heard of since then. In 1908 the step-grand-mother of Rakhma sold the property to one Ramji, who in his turn sold it in 1914 to the present plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants alleging that they were dispossesped by them sometime after they had obtained possession of the land, and that though they had succeeded in obtaining possession under the decree in a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, as that decree was ultimately reversed, the defendants got back the possession in April 1917. The defendant No. 1 appeared. The other defendants did not appear. The contention raised by him was that the property belonged really to his nephew, Rakhma ; that he was last heard of in 1906; that the property had come into his possession from Rak...
Sri Gadicherala Venkatanarasimha Rao Garu Vs. Nyapathy Subba Rao Pantu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom300
Spencer, J.1. This suit was instituted by three plaintiffs styling themselves members and trustees of the Godavari Hindu Samaj, with the sanction of the Advocate-General under Section 92 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the purpose of getting a scheme framed by the Court for carrying out the trust contained in Clauses 11 and 12 of the will of the late Rajah Gadicherla Seethayya of Rajahmundry who executed it on April; 4th and died on April 10th, 1909. By the same will the, testator gave authority to his widow to adopt a son which she did on June 4th, 1911, by adopting the present appellant.2. Clauses 11 and 12 of the will run as follows:A sum of Rs. 400 should be spent every year out of my estate, either for the spread (abhivrithi) of the Sanskrit language or for the spread of the Hindu religion, or for both. The said sum must be a charge on my estate. The executors must make the arrangements necessary therefor to have the same conducted as the then existing trustees of the Rajahmundry...
The Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Pandit Radhika Prasad ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1922
Reported in: (1923)ILR46Bom259
Schwabe, C.J.1. The history of this matter is so clearly stated in the judgment of Coutts Trotter, J., that it is unnecessary for me to repeat it and I have nothing to add to his statement of the facts except as to the plaintiff's title and I will deal with that first.2. The plaintiff is the assignee of one Mukund Lal who is the direct lineal descendant of Madhu Sahai who, in the year 1845, had issued to him a document called a promissory-note of the Tanjore debt No. 307. The plaintiff has also obtained from the District Court of Benares a succession certificate under the Succession Certificate Act of 1889 in the matter of the estate of Madhu Sahai declaring him entitled to collect the money and the interest due on the said promissory-note (Exhibit M). The effect of that certificate is that the n plaintiff is declared to have whatever rights Madhu Sahai would have had in that promissory-note if he had been alive, and payment to him will be a good discharge to the Government. The assign...
Gopal Bhimji Avte Vs. Manaji Ganuji Padval and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1922
Reported in: 81Ind.Cas.449
Lallubhai Shah, A.C.J.1. The facts relating to this second appeal are these: One Rakhma was the owner of the property in suit. He is said to have disappeared about the year 1898 or 1899, and has not been heard of since then. In 1908 the step-grandmother of Rakhma sold the property to one Ramji, who in his turn sold it in 1914 to the present plain tiff No. 1. The plaintiffs filed this suit against the defendants alleging that they were dispossessed by them sometime after they had obtained possession of the land, and that though they had succeeded in obtaining possession under the decree in a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, as that decree was ultimately reversed, the defendants got back the possession in April 1917. The defendant No. 1 appeared. The other defendants did not appear. The contention raised by him was that the property belonged really to his nephew, Rakhma: that he was last heard of in 1906; that the property had come into his, possession from Rakhma; that A...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›