Mumbai Court March 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.
Jamasji Hormasji Bahadurpur Wala and anr. Vs. Jamestji Hormasji Bahadu ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.754
1. This is a first appeal arising in Original Suit No. 43 of 1913. It was a suit filed by the plaintiffs to whom Letters of Administration of the estate of one Hormasji Hiraji had been granted for the administration of the suit property by ascertaining the right, title and interest therein of the parties. The Judge has made a list of the properties distributable among the heirs of the deceased Hormasji. He has also declared the shares to which the different sharers are entitled, and has given various other directions. In this appeal we are only concerned with two contentions raised by the plaintiffs, first, with regard to the expenses of the, marriage of Alabai, the daughter of Jamsetji, and, secondly, with regard to the amount paid by the plaintiffs as Administrators to one Framji, alleged to be a creditor of the deceased. The earned Judge has only allowed Rs 4,000 out of Rs. 10,910, for the actual expenses of Alabai's marriage: and, although the testator directed that all the marriag...
Khajeh Solehman Quadir Vs. Nawab Sir Salimullah Bahadur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-02-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1257
Viscount Cave, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated June 6, 1919, which reversed a judgment and decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca dated April 16, 1917. The facts giving rise to the dispute may be stated as follows :-2. Early in the 19th century one Khajeh Abdullah, a Mahomedan trader of Dacca, died intestate, possessed of the property in dispute and leaving among other heirs four sons named Ahsanullah, Hafizullah, Abdul Azim and Abdul Karim.3. On May 5, 1846, certain members of the family executed a deed whereby they purported to 'make wakf of' certain family properties therein described for the benefit of themselves and their descendants generation after generation, and relatives and then for the poor and destitute; and they thereby appointed Abdul Gani (grandson of Ahsanullah) to be mutwali of the properties, and directed him to pay to the heirs of Hafizullah, Abdul Azim and Abdul Karim, ...
Ghanshyamdas Vishnudas Gandhi Vs. Laxmibai Vishnudas Gandhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR726
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was the lawfully adopted son of the deceased Vishnudas, who died in 1911, leaving the 1st defendant, the widow, him surviving. On an application to the District Court under Act VIII of 1890, defendants 2 to 5 were appointed guardians of the person and property of defendant 1, and in that capacity defendants 2 to 5 took the property in their possession and began to manage it. The plaintiff claimed that he was adopted on the 2nd May 1914 when the 1st defendant, the widow, was sixteen years and eight months old. There is no doubt that the adoption ceremony took place. But we should have thought that the very fact that the adopted son was the son of a certificated guardian would be quite sufficient to throw suspicion on the whole transaction, and would throw the onus on the plaintiff to show that it was a valid adoption brought about with the free consent of the first defendant.2. In the trial Court various issues were rai...
Ghanshyamdas Vishundas Gandhi Vs. Laxmibai Vishnudas Gandhi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1922
Reported in: 70Ind.Cas.955
1. The plaintiff sued for a declaration that he was the lawfully adopted son of the deceased Vishnudas, who died in 1911, leaving the first defendant, the widow, him surviving. On an application to the District Court under Act VIII of 1890, defendants Nos. 2 tc5 were appointed guardians of the person and property of defendant No. 1, and in that capacity defendants Nos. 2 to 5 took the property in their possession and began to manage it. The plaintiff claimed that he was adopted on the 2nd May 1914 sihen the first defendant, the widow, was sixteen Years and eight months old. There is no doubt that the adoption ceremony took place. But We should have thought that the very fact that the adopted son was the son of a certificated guardian would be quite sufficient to throw suspicion on the whole transaction, and would throw the onus on the plaintiff to show that it was a valid adoption brought about with the free consent of the first defendant.2. In the Trial Court various issues were raise...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›