Mumbai Court December 1927 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.
Sunder Mull Vs. Satya Kinker Sahana -
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR793
Viscount Summer, J.1. This case conies before their Lordships upon special leave to appeal, by which the question to be discussed was very carefully limited. In December, 1907, the kartas of the six branches of a Hindu joint family, of which the present defendants were members, executed a mortgage bond in favour of the present respondents for a principal sum of 12,000 rupees, with interest at per cent, per mensem, that is, fifteen per cent, per annum, with the provision that if the interest was not paid year by year it should be treated as principal and compound interest at the same rate should be charged up to the date of payment.2. The suit was commenced in 1919, when a large sum had accumulated due, since no interest had been paid at all; 37,000 rupees were then outstanding. It was for the purpose of realizing the security, and the answer made by the members of the joint family, who defended it, was both that the money was not borrowed for necessity; that the terms, namely, the rate...
Puran Chand Nahatta Vs. Manmotho Nath Mukherjee
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-05-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR783
Viscount Sumner, J.1. This appeal arises in a vendor's suit for specific performance of a contract, dated February 20, 1920, for the sale of a house, No. 13, Marsdoii Street, Calcutta, The appellant defended the suit on the ground that he could not be required to accept the title offered to him, because (a) the house was included in an outstanding and enforceable mortgage, dated March 27, 1380, which constituted a blot on the title, and (6) because, partly by reason of the vendors' failure to produce a certain power of attorney, which ought to have been produced, and partly because the person, who appeared before the Registrar to acknowledge the execution of the conveyance with which the vendors' title began, did not satisfy the requirements of the Registration Act, the title offered was incomplete. Ghose J. upheld his objection, but his jadgment was reversed by the High Court of Calcutta on appeal.2. The facts are these. On April 29, 1853, Hari Mohon Sircar executed a family deed of t...
Bhagwan Singh Vs. Ujagar Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR267
Lancelot Sanderson, J.1. This is an appeal by the legal representatives of Bishen Singh, who was the defendant No. 1 in the suit, against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore, dated July 22, 1923. The High Court's judgment reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit.2. The suit was brought in July, 1917, by the plaintiff, Ujagai Singh, against Bishen Singh and two other defendants, viz., Abdul Eahman Khan, sometimes called Balwant Singh, and Jas-want Singh, sons of Gurbaksh Singh, to recover possession of the land mentioned in the plaint, situate in the Gujranwala district, which was alleged by the plaintiff to have been part of the ancestral property of Hira Singh, the grandfather of the plaintiff.3. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 had a half-share in the said property, but that, by reason of a private partition, they had taken other lands in exchange for their share in the suit land, that co...
Yakubkhan Daimkhan Serguro Vs. Guljarkhan Abdulkhan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1927
Reported in: AIR1928Bom267; (1928)30BOMLR565
Madgavkar, J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the lower Courts were right in rejecting the mortgage-deed of 1895 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that the proof of attestation as required by law was wanting. The deed itself is written by the witness Hari Bhikaji and is signed 'Mark by the hand of Mirjubibi by the hand of Hari Bhikaji', It is attested by three witnesses, one Baba or Bavakhan, who is alive and has given evidence, and the other two witnesses Roshankhan and Sheik Ahmed, who were dead at the date of the suit. Of the last two, Roshankhan has similarly attested the mark of Mirjubibi before the Sub-Registrar made below her acknowledgment as executant. The witness Bavakhan stated that Mirjubibi was not present when he attested it, but that the appellant's father took him to Mirjubibi and she requested him to attest and then presumably he attested it, though he did not ask her if she had executed the document. In the absence of evidence as to the signa...
Abdur Rahim Vs. Syed Abu Mahomed Barkat Ali Shah
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1927
Reported in: (1928)30BOMLR774
Sinha, J.1. This litigation arises in connection with an ancient mosque standing on a portion of Holding No. 221 in the Government Khas Mahal of Dihi Panchannagram, near Calcutta. In a proceeding under Reg. II of 1819 between the Government of India as plaintiff and one Syed Miron Munshi of Kalinga as defendant, the whole holding, then 3 bighas, 11 eottas and 3 chhataka in area (a portion has since been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act), was declared by the Revenue Authorities to be revenue-free as property dedicated long ago to religious uses, i. e., a wake, of which the said Miron Munshi was the then mutwali. The mosque stood on a portion of this area and the rest of it was let out to tenants, the rents being appropriated for the expenses of the mosque.2. Mir Miran or Miron Munshi continued to hold this area of land as mutwali of the mosque until his death about seventy years ago, and after him his son, Sheikh Mahommad Jan, succeeded him as mutwali. Mahommad Jan died about fif...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›