Mumbai Court January 1924 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.
Bai Jayagavri Vs. Ramanlal Chhotalal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom302; (1924)26BOMLR187; 79Ind.Cas.749
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. Suit No. 211 of 1919 filed in the Court of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Broach was dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs presented in November 1920 Appeal No. 419 of 1920 in the Bombay High Court. The appeal was dismissed with coats. The respondent then presented a Darkhast in the First Class Subordinate Judge's Court to recover the costs awarded to the respondents in Appeal No. 419 of 1920. The costs, it appears, were paid but the Darkhastdar asked for the costs of the Darkhast on the ground that he was entitled to such costs under Bombay Act XVII of 1920. By Section 18(1) of the Act, where costs are awarded to a party in any proceeding, the amount of the pleader's fee to be taxed in the bill of costs as recoverable by such party, if represented by a pleader, from his adversary, shall be computed in accordance with the rules in Schedule III unless such fee has been settled under the provisions of Section 17 for a lesser amount in which case no more t...
Balabai Tukaram Babar Vs. Mahadu Krishna Babar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-07-1924
Reported in: AIR1924Bom349; (1924)26BOMLR222
Norman Macleod, C.J.1. The only question of law that arises in this second appeal is whether the adoption of plaintiff No. 1 by Putlabai, the widow of Krishna, is valid. Its validity is questioned by defendant No. 1, the mother of Krishna, on the ground that the age of the adopted boy is greater than the age of the adoptive father Krishna. The adoption was effected by Putlabai, the widow of Krishna. But that circumstance does not affect the question of the validity of the adoption. She could not validly adopt, if Krishna could not have made the adoption on account of the plaintiff No.1 being older than himself.2. The trial Court in this case has taken the view that such an adoption is invalid, while the lower appellate Court has accepted the view that the adoption is not invalid, though it is opposed to the Hindu sentiment, and to a rule which, though it has not the force of law, is recommendatory as to the propriety of the adoption. There is no express text directly bearing on this po...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›