Mumbai Court December 1925 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.
Navanitlal Hurjivandas Vs. Purshottam Hurjivan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR143; 94Ind.Cas.11
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. The petitioner was 'married to the minor in May 1922, The minor was born on December 29, 1910, and was, therefore, 11 1/2 years old at the time of her marriage. It may be taken as admitted that in February and March 1923, the husband and wife lived together as such. Thereafter disputes arose between the minor's father and her husband's father, with the result that in March 1923, the minor having gone to her father's house, he refused to allow her to go back to her husband, After a long correspondence the husband tiled this petition on October 16, 1924, praying that he might be declared to be the guardian of the person and property of his minor wife. It came on for hearing before the Chamber Judge in November 1924. He questioned the minor in his chambers when she told him that she was afraid to live with her husband in her present state of health, that her husband and his father had treated her cruelly when she lived with them, that her husband had threatened...
Mukund Dharman Bhoir Vs. Shantaram Rajo Bhoir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR627
Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.1. His lordship first dealt with the questions of fact arising in the case, and than proceeded as follows:- The mortgagee has filed no cross-objections. She claims that she should be allowed, under O. XLI, r. 33, Civil Procedure Code, to contest the finding of the learned Judge so far as it goes against her. But we think the reasoning in Rangam Lal v. Jhandu I.L.R.(1911) All. 32 satisfactorily shows that, in a case like this, the Court would not be justified in applying the provisions of that rule. Ordinarily speaking, if a party against whom a decree has been passed files no appeal, and no cross-objections, when the opponent files an appeal, then he cannot be allowed to dispute the decision of the Court below against him There is no reason whatever in this case why we should entertain such an application by the mortgagee, The ground on which she now desires to contest the finding of the lower Court is founded on a different basis to that which was relied upon ...
Mukund Dharman Bhoir Vs. Shantaram Rajo Bhoir and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1925
Reported in: AIR1927Bom128
Macleod, C.J.1. (After dealing with the questions of fact the judgment proceeded.) The mortgagee has filed no cross-objections. She claims that she should be allowed, under Order 41, Rule 33, Civil Procedure Code, to contest the finding of the learned Judge so far as it goes against her. But we think the reasoning in Rangam Lal v. Jhandu [1911] 34 All. 32 satisfactorily shows that, in a casa like this, the Court would not be justified in applying the provisions of that rule. Ordinarily speaking, if a party against whom a decree has been passed files no appeal, and no cross-objections when the opponent files an appeal, then he cannot be allowed to dispute the decision of the Court below against him. There is no reason whatever in this case why we should entertain such an application by the mortgagee. The ground on which she now desires to contest the finding of the lower Court is founded on a different basis to that which was relied upon in the Court below....
Emperor Vs. Ramnath Mahabir
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR111
Fawcett, J.1. The Advocate General has tendered in evidence the statement made by the accused Ramath before the Coroner on September 25, 1925, when the Coroner was holding an inquest under the Coroner's Act, 1871, over the body of the deceased Surajballi.2. Mr. Pendse, for the accused, objects that this statement is inadmissible. He mainly relies upon Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, under which a Magistrate ' may record any statement or confession made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, or at any time afterwards before , the commencement of the inquiry or trial.' The section lays down that he should record a confession in a particular manner and append to it a certificate, inter alia, that he has explained to the person making the confession that any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him.3. In this particular case the Coroner, Mr. Athavle, who took the statement, has given evidence that the accused was told that he need not mak...
Man Singh Vs. Nawlakhbati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1925
Reported in: (1926)28BOMLR841
John Edge, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree, dated April 6, 1923, of the High Court at Patna, which affirmed a decree dated June 5, 1922, of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur.2. The parties to the suit in which this appeal has arisen are Hindus, by caste Rajput, of the district of Bhagalpur, who are governed by the law of the Mitakshara, and the following pedigree shows how they art related:-Maharani Tarabati = Maharaja Hariballab = Maharani Nowlakh batifirst wife, died Narain Singh, K.C.I E., a defendant and 1stAugust 1920. died 1 April, 1907. respondent.|Padmabati = Rao Lakat Singh, deaddied 20 May, 1915, | | Gobind Singh, Rudra Pratab Singh, died October, 1919. a defendant and | I 2nd respondent. Man Singh, Plaintif and appellant.3. Sir Hariballab Narain Singh died intestate on April 1, 1907, possessed of the Sonbarsa estate, which was situate principally in the district of Bhagalpur and produced an income of about two lacs of rupees a year. On his death his two wido...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›