Mumbai Court May 1932 Judgments
K.B. Seth Sorabjee Vs. Seth Dwarkadas Ranchhoddas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-24-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1310
John Wallis, J.1. This appeal was originally before the Board on February 12, 1932, when, upon a preliminary objection taken by the appearing respondents, their Lordships agreed humbly to advise His Majesty that the certificate of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the Central Provinces admitting the appeal was wrongly granted but that special leave to appeal ought to be granted to the appellant upon lodging a petition for that purpose. This petition was duly lodged, and their Lordships' report was approved by Order in Council of March 17, 1932.2. The case, which comes here on appeal from a judgment and decree in second appeal, raises a question of some importance as to the right under the existing law in India of a mortgagor of proprietary rights to recover on redemption subordinate tenures acquired by the mortgagee during the subsistence of the mortgage. This question came before this Board in Bajah Kishendatt Ram v. Rajah Mumtaz Ali Khan before the enactment in 1882 of the In...
Tag this Judgment!Gafur Mohammad Vs. Mohammad Sharif
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-10-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1194
Blanesburgh, J.1. This is the defendant's appeal from a decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Central Provinces, of date November 22, 1927, decreeing the plaintiffs' suit against him, and reversing a decree of September 28, 1825, of the Subordinate Judge at Balaghat who had dismissed it. The plaintiffs although served did not appear before the Board,2. The object of the proceedings was to obtain a decree, such as has been made by the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, setting aside a lakh and parsadi lease of the mauza Saheki in the District Balagbat granted to the appellant on November 2, 1916. Of that mauza Saheki, Mohammad Kasam, father of the respondents, had been up to his death the owner. It was his self-acquired property. By his will of December 9, 1915, made a few days before he died, Mohammad Kassam bequeathed Saheki in shares to his sons-the three respondents, and a fourth son Hasam, since dead, and he appointed his eldest son, the respondent Sharif, to be guardi...
Tag this Judgment!Musst. Brij Indar Kuar Vs. Thakur Jai Indar Bahadur Singh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-09-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1188
Dinshah Mulla, J.1. Thakur Rajindra Bahadur Singh died on October 18, 1912, leaving a will dated June 14,1907, and a codicil dated October 4, 1912. By his will he bequeathed the residue of his estate to his nephew, who is the respondent before this Board. By his codicil he left a monthly sum of Rs. 200 to the appellant, Rs. 500 to his widow, Rs. 300 to another daughter and Rs. 30 to a female servant, and charged certain properties with the payment of the annuities.2. All the annuities fell into arrears and on January 30, 1920, the appellant, who was then a minor, brought the suit out of which the present appeal arises against the respondent to recover the arrears of the annuity due to her, for the administration of the estate of the testator, and for the appointment of a receiver. The other annuitants were joined as defendants to the suit.3. Two other suits were also filed, one by the appellant's sister and the other by the servant, to recover the arrears of the annuities due to them.4...
Tag this Judgment!The Official Assignee of Bombay Vs. K.R.P. Shroff
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-06-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1178
Blanesburgh, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Bombay of September 30, 1930, made in its appellate jurisdiction, dismissing an appeal of the appellant from a decree of the same Court of March 19, 1930, made in its original civil jurisdiction. The main question for determination is whether a card or right of membership of one Virji Madhavji in the Bombay Native Share and Stock Brokers' Association or the proceeds of sale thereof, when sold, pass to the appellant as the assignee in insolvency of his estate and effects.2. By both Courts in India the question has been answered in the negative.3. The facts of the case are simple and are not in dispute. On or about November 26, 1910, the insolvent was, on his own application, admitted a member of the Association in the place of his deceased father. On May 11, 1917, a card was issued to him, certifying, that as such member, enrolled in 1910, he was entitled to enjoy all the rights and' privileges and was subject to all...
Tag this Judgment!The Benares Bank Ltd. Vs. Hari Narain
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1932
Reported in: (1932)34BOMLR1079
Dinshah Mulla, J.1. This appeal involves questions which frequently arise in suits to enforce a mortgage against property which belongs to a Hindu joint family governed by the Mitakshara where the mortgage is executed by the father for himself and for his minor sons as their guardian.2. The family in this case consisted of two brothers, Jagdish Narain and Raghubir Narain and their respective sons. Jagdish Narain had five sons, two of them, Suraj Narain and Dip Narain being adults and the other three minors. Raghubir Narain had three sons, all of whom were minors.3. On September 1,1911, the adult membersof the family borrowed Rs. 28,000 from the Benares Bank, Limited, the appellants before this Board, and executed a deed whereby they mortgaged six properties belonging to the family, one situated at Allahabad, another at Manjhiari, and the rest in the Fatehpur district, to secure the debt and interest, each father signing as guardian of his minor sons. The mortgage deed recited that the ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›