Mumbai Court December 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.
Sahdeo NaraIn Deo Vs. Kusum Kumari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-04-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR560
Phillimore, J.1. The question to be decided in this case is whether the succession to an impartible estate, called the Lachmipur Raj, devolved upon the adopted son of the last owner, or upon his nearest collateral blood relation. The action was brought by two half-brothers, claiming in the alternative that one or other was entitled to succeed according to the rule of primogeniture established for this property (with a third plaintiff, the assignee, for value of part of their claims), to recover possession from the defendant, who alleged that he was the adopted son of the last bolder. Various points were raised as to the fact and regularity of the adoption, but these were disposed of in the course of the case in favour of the defendant. The plaintiffs' main case, however, was that there was a 'family or clan custom which forbids and bars inheritance by adoption,' or, as counsel for the plaintiffs has invited their Lordships to look at the matter, that the succession to this estate is no...
Bhagubai Tukaram Jogdunde Vs. Appaji Sitaram Charathe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom260; (1923)25BOMLR157
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff is the sister of one Bala Narayan who died while serving with the regiment of 121st Pioneers. He left a widow called Sugandha. Purporting to exercise her widow's rights she sold the plaint property to the second defendant. The plaintiff's suit is to recover this property. The plaintiff mainly relies on the 'Kindred Roll and Names of Heirs' appertaining to the deceased. A true copy has been produced signed by the Officer Commanding the Depot, and we are entitled to accept that as evidence of the Kindred Roll of the deceased. But the question really is whether by virtue of that document, or any other evidence in the case, the suit property has passed to the plaintiff. The trial Court held that the Kindred Roll was a will embodying the legal declaration of the intentions of the testator with respect to his property which he desired to be carried into effect after his death. The District Judge held that the document was not proved. I think there he...
Maruti Balaji Patil Vs. Dattu Mukunda Savant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Bom253(1); (1923)25BOMLR192
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The only question in this appeal is whether Exhibit 29A has been proved. The plaintiff's title to the suit property would stand or fall on that document which is a sale deed. As the lower appellate Court says:It purports to have been passed by defendant No. 1, but defendant No. 1 has not been examined, nor has the signature alleged to be his, been verified, nor has the writer of the document or any of the witnesses who purport to have attested it, been examined. In these circumstances can it be said that the document has been proved.2. The answer at first impression to that question would certainly be in the negative. When the appeal came up for admission before me, it was urged that under Section 60 of the Indian Registration Act the certificate of the registering officer was admissible for the purpose of proving not only that the document had been duly registered in the manner provided by this Act, but also that the facts mentioned in the endorsements refe...
Saratkumari Dasi Vs. Amullyadhan Kundu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-01-1922
Reported in: (1923)25BOMLR548
Atkinson, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated February 27, 1920, of tha High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal which reversed a judgment and decree dated April 17, 1919, of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Howrah. The main question for determination by the Board is whether or not the compromise of a certain suit instituted by the appellant to recover possession of certain lands theretofore purchased by her from one Dharma Das Kundu, since deceased, purporting to have been made and entered into on February 7, 1917, had in fact been so made and entered with her full knowledge and consent or the contrary. The appellant is a purdanashin lady aged about forty-three years. She has two sons, Raman and Srish, the latter of whom appears to be competent to some extent to transact business, and two brothers named Satish, about forty-seven years of age and the other, Sailadhar, who is younger. She can write and read in Bengali; can sign her name, and from her evi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›