Mumbai Court March 1929 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.
Faizullah Khan Vs. Mauladad Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR841
Shaw, J.1. This is a consolidated appeal from an order dated May 7, 1925, in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province, Peshawar, which set aside a decree of the Honorary Subordinate Judge of Dera Iamail Khan dated March 24, 1924.2. Stated generally, the case between the parties had reference to the rendering of accounts and the settlement of the sums due thereon in connection with a partnership of a firm of contractors for supply and transport and military works. The partnership is now dissolved.3. In the suit, brought on March 29, 1923, Faizullah Khan and Sherdad Khan, plaintiffs and appellants, valued their suit at Rs. 3,000 for the purpose of Court fees, and asked for a rendering of accounts and a decree for Rs. 3,000 with the statement 'if more than Re, 3,000 be found due to the plaintiffs they will pay an additional Court fee.' In his pleas Mauladad Khan, the first defendant, asked for a decree in his own favour for Rs. 29,000, and he challenged t...
Bai Kanta Vs. Bhailal Ghelabhai Amin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-12-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1046; 122Ind.Cas.56
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. A preliminary point of evidence arises on this appeal. It is raised in grounds 4 and 5 of the cross-objections of the petitioner Bhailal, respondent No. 1 to this appeal, and It is to the effect that 'the lower Court erred in ruling that Messrs. Mavlankar and Baldevprasad were precluded from deposing to the contents of the will.' As to that the learned Judge in para. 22 of his judgment says: 'There are four witnesses who have read the will after the death of the testator, and who have been examined as to the contents thereof. Of these two Messrs. Mavlankar, Exhibit 50, and Baldevprasad, Exhibit 106, are pleaders. The will came in their hands in the course of their professional employment in connection with the succession certificate and they were held precluded from deposing to the contents.'2. So far as the notes of evidence are concerned, we cannot see that there was any argument on this point, or any formal objection taken. None of the counsel appearing ...
Kapurji Magniram Vs. Pannaji Debichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR619
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council against the judgment dated August 7, 1928, of Mr. Justice Fawcett and Mr. Justice Murphy. Mr. Justice Fawcett at the present time is on deputation, and accordingly he is unable to hear the present application.2. As a result of that judgment, this appellate Court varied the decree of the lower Court to a certain extent in favour of the plaintiff and this resulted in the finding of a sum of Rs. 2,488 due by the defendants to the plaintiff at the date of the suit. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, is however dissatisfied with decision. He wants to appeal to their Lordships against one item which was decided against him, viz., an havala item of Rs. 18,000 referred to in his memorandum of appeal.3. Now as regards that item both the Courts below were in agreement, and accordingly it is clear that the appeal to the Privy Council, if allowed, would be merely, so far as the plaintiff is concerned, wi...
Khoo SaIn Ban Vs. Tan Guat Tean
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR873
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Rangoon made in its Appellate Jurisdiction on April 20, 1926. It reversed a decree of the same Court made in its Original Civil Jurisdiction on May 8, 1925. In the case for the appellant the point to be decided is thus stated : 'The principal question in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to a charge upon certain property in Rangoon known as 'Mount Pleasant' as was found by the trial Court or only to a money decree as held by the Court of Appeal.'2. It is unnecessary to repeat the facts of the case antecedent to August 2, 1923. They are stated with sufficient particularity in the cases for the parties and in the judgments of the Courts below.3. One Lim Chin Tsong, a Chinese resident in Burma, had acquired in 1909 a small plot of land of 1.871 acres in extent, part of 'the Golden Valley estate' in the district of Rangoon. In 1919 he also purchased two other properties, one of which was a house and land known a...
Abdulsakur Haji Vs. Abubakkar Haji Abba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-09-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom191; (1930)32BOMLR215
Mirza, J.1. This is a suit by three of the legatees under the will of one Fatmabai, widow of Abdulla Haji Dawood, against the proving executor of the will and other legatees and heirs and legal representatives of such legatees as have died since the death of Fatmabai for the administration of the estate of the testatrix and for payment to the legatees and the representatives of the legatees such legacies as are provided for by the will. Fatmabai died on January 14, 1928, after having made her will on September 10, 1914. Two of the executors appointed by the will died in the life-time of the testatrix, Defendant No. 1, who is the third executor under the will, obtained probate of it on July 4, 1924. At the date of the will the testatrix owned an immovable property at Eipon Road. After the date of the will she acquired another immoveable property at Malad. By a Judge's order dated October 1, 1928, the plaint and proceedings were ordered to be amended by making the Advocate General as rep...
Mohabbat Ali Khan Vs. Muhammad Ibrahim Khan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR846
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from the decree of the Judicial Commissioner for the North-West Frontier Province dated January 24, 1927, which set aside a decree dated April 14, 1925, of the Court of the District Judge, Kohat. The District Judge had decreed that the appellant is the legitimate son of one Khan Sahib Khushdil Khan. The Judicial Commissioner reversed this judgment and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.2. The plaintiff was born in 1906. It is not disputed that he is the son of Khushdil Khan by Mussammat Babo. Various questions were raised in the case, but the only point remaining for determination in this appeal is whether the appellant is the legitimate son of Khushdil Khan, that depending upon whether Khushdil and Mussammat Babo were married persons.3. In August and September, 1923, Khushdil had serious attacks of illness, accompanied by paralysis and aphasia, While still suffering from these diseases he, on April 2, 1924, executed a deed of gift by, as was alleged, making hi...
Govardhandas Vallabhdas Vs. the Official Liquidator, Electro-metal Ref ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-07-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR1209; 122Ind.Cas.836
Amberson Marten, Kt., C.J.1. This appeal was opened to us as depending on the following question of law, viz., whether if a property is seized and attached and an order for sale made, an attaching creditor becomes a secured creditor. But that question is hardly the real point that we have to decide. The papers have been laid before us in a very confused way, and the paper-book omitted to contain a large number of material documents, said Official consequently we have been put to the inconvenience on endeavouring to elucidate the past history of the case by putting questions to counsel and being given extracts from documents or copies of documents at different stages.2. The first matter to consider is, what is the precise application of the appellant creditor before the Court That appears to be contained in an affidavit sworn on September 2, 1928, in which he claims that the applicants are secured creditors and are entitled to payment first in preference to other creditors of the said c...
N.H. Moos Vs. Gulamali Tyabali Soni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom152; 125Ind.Cas.441
Mirza, J.1. The plaintiff as receiver in Suit No. 3012 of 1925 addressed a letter to the defendants on January 8, 1926, demanding from them a sum of Rs. 2,100 as due by the defendants to the said estate. By their Pleader's letter dated January 13, 1926, the defendants replied that the sum of Rs. 2,100 had been paid by them with interest and that they got back the receipt which they had passed in respect of that amount. The plaintiff from time to time called upon the defendants to let him know to what person they had paid the said amount and to produce the receipt for his inspection. The defendants sent no reply to these letters. This suit was filed after the plaintiff's Attorneys had addressed their notice to the defendants dated February 19, 1926, and their further notice dated March 25, 1926, demanding payment of the amount and threatening to file a suit to enforce the demand if not complied with. No reply having been received to either letter the present suit was filed against the d...
Ekradeshwari BahuasIn Saheba Vs. Homeshwar Sing
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1929
Reported in: (1929)31BOMLR816
Shaw, J.1. This is an appeal from a judgment and decree dated May 13, 1926, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, which affirmed a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Darbhanga, dated March 10, 1924.2. The appellant is the widow of Babu Ekradeshwar Singh, a descendant in the junior line of the Darbhanga family. Babu Ekradeshwar was twice married. He died on October 21, 1916, survived by the appellant, his second wife, and a daughter by her, and by the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, his sons by his first wife, who had predeceased him, He was also survived by respondents Nos. 4 and 5, his grandsons, who wore the sons of respondent No. 2.3. The appellant, Ekradeshwari, who was sole widow, continued to live in the family house for four or five years after her husband's death. She complains in this action that the style of life to 1929 which she had to submit during that residence was penurious and inadequate. Upon leaving her husband's house she went to stay with her father w...
Langley Vs. D'arcy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1929
Reported in: AIR1930Bom24; (1929)31BOMLR1020; 122Ind.Cas.121
Rangnekar, J.1. This is an application to review the taxation of the defendant-respondent's costs. The first five items objected to, are, in my opinion, items in regard to which there is no principle involved. It is well established that a Court or a Judge will not in general interfere with the order of taxation to be reviewed on a question that depends on the discretion of the Master, as, for instance, where the objection is to the amount As stated in Hill v. Peel (1870) L.R. 5 c. p. 172 where a principle is involved, the Court will always interfere and entertain a review, but where it is a question of whether the Master exercised his discretion properly or it is only a question as to the amount to be allowed, the Court is generally unwilling to interfere with the judgment of its officer whose peculiar province it is to investigate and to judge of such matter, unless there are very strong grounds to show that the officer is wrong in the judgment which he has formed. In my opinion, no ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »