Mumbai Court April 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.
Sitabai Nagesh Desai Vs. Parvatibai Nagesh Desai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR748
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The main question which has been argued in this appeal is whether the adoption by the first defendant of her daughter's husband was valid. The question arose in second Appeal No. 911 of 1915 in a case amongst Sudras, and although there is no judgment, the appellate Court confirmed the decision of the lower Court that the adoption was valid. No authority has been cited for the proposition that in Hindu law there is a direct prohibition against the adoption of the daughter's husband. We are asked to hold that it is invalid on the ground that by the adoption the husband in effect becomes the brother of his wife, and, therefore, we should ourselves lay down that according to the rules of Hindu law the adoption of a daughter's husband is invalid. For myself, I should say in the absence of a prohibition it would be difficult to hold that such an adoption, however undesirable it may be in ordinary circumstances, is invalid. In this case the widow appears to have been en...
Yeknath Narayan Kulkarni Vs. Laxmibai Kesho Gopal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR836
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The plaintiff claiming to be the heir of one Ramchandra sued for declarations (1) that defendant No. 3 was not adopted by defendant No. 1 and that if he was adopted, the adoption was invalid, (2) that the sale-deed passed to defendant No. 4 by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 was not binding on the plaintiff.2. The following pedigree will explain the relationship of the parties:- Naropant | ------------------------------------------------ | | Annaji Gopsl | | | Keshav | (Plaintiff) ------------------------------------- | | | Ramchandra Balkrishna Ganapati= (Died without) | Bhagirthi (issue) Narayan=Lakshmi (Deft. 2) | (Deft. 1) Vasudeo (Deft. 3, adopted son.)3. Annaji died in the first half of 1899 leaving him surviving his eon Ramchandra, his grandson Narayan by a predeceased son Balkrishna and Bhagirthibai the widow of a predeceased son Ganapati. Ramchandra and Narayan died on the 1st of November 1899. If Narayan survived Ramchandra then he would be the last male holder ...
Maharaja Sir Manindra Chandra Nandi Vs. Ram Kumar Bhagat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-03-1922
Reported in: (1922)24BOMLR1251
Phillimore, J.1. The present respondents brought as plaintiffs on April 15, 1907, a suit against Raja Makund Sahi to recover possession of six villages and jungle which they claimed. The Raja defended the action, which in due course came on for trial, and on September 21, 1908, the Court of first instance decided against the plaintiffs and dismissed the suit. Just one year afterwards, on September 21, 1909, the Raja gave a lease of a term of years of the right of mining for mica; and otherwise exploiting the jungle, to the present appellant, whose case is that he had no notice of the pending litigation.2. The unsuccessful plaintiffs appealed to the High Court, which, on May 15, 1913, reversed the decision of the first Court and made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs ordering the Raja to put them into possession of the six villages and jungle, and it was further ordered :-That the case be sent back to the lower Court [inter alia] to take an account of the mesne profits to which the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›