Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR1014
Macmillan, J.1. The previous history of this litigation is set out in the judgments of the Board delivered in 1930 and 1932 and reported in Jadunath Kuar v. Bisheshar Bakhsh Singh (1930) L.R. 59 IndAp 173. The original plaintiff, Raja Bisheshar Baksh Singh, who has since died, claimed to be entitled to the taluka of Gangwal in succession to Raja Suraj Prakash Singh, the last male 'holder, who died in 1899. The present respondents are the two sons of the original plaintiff and as his legal representatives have taken his place as plaintiffs in the suit.2. When the case was formerly before the Board, the ground was cleared of various questions which are consequently no longer in controversy. The sole remaining question, which was then formulated but not decided, was remitted to the Chief Court of Oudh, and the present appeal is from the judgment of that Court pronounced in conformity with their finding on the question remitted to them.3. By the previous judgments of the Board it has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR979
Shadi Lal, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, dated January 23, 1933, which reversed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Banda, dated January 17, 1929, and allowed the plaintiff's claim for possession of a village called Kalinjar Tirhati with mesme profits thereof. One Ganesh Prasad, a resident of Banda in the Province of Agra, was the proprietor of a large and valuable estate, including the village in dispute died on May 10, 1914, leaving him surviving a son, Bindeshri Prasad, who was thereupon recorded in the Revenue Records as the proprietor of the estate left by his father.2. In execution of a decree for money obtained by a creditor against Bindeshri Prasad, the village of Kalinjar Tirhati was sold by auction on November 20, Sir 1924; and the sale was confirmed on January 25, 1925. Bindeshri Prasad then brought the suit, which has led to the present appeal, claiming. possession of the property on the ground that the sale was vitiated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR939
Maugham, J.1. The point for decision in this case is whether a will executed by one Thakur Shankar Bakhsh Singh (whom it will be convenient to call Shankar Bakhsh) bearing date July 28, 1904, was a disposition of his property made with the consent of the Court of Wards at Sitapur in the terms of Section 34 of the North Western Provinces and Oudh Court of Wards Act (III of 1899).2. The appellants propounded the will in question and petitioned the Chief Court of Oudh at Lucknow for letters of administration of the estate of the ward with a copy of the will of July 28, 1904, annexed. A number of objections were raised to the alleged will, but they have all failed except on the point as to the lack of consent of the Court of Wards. As to this the Chief Court in its original jurisdiction has held that the consent of the Court of Wards was obtained. The Chief Court in its appellate jurisdiction has held the contrary.3. The relevant facts are as follows :-4. On August 1, 1901, the estate of S...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR1012
Maugham, J.1. Out of respect to the Chief Court of Oudh, their Lordships think it desirable to state very shortly the reasons that have; led them to approve the minutes substantially in the terms which have been settled by junior counsel in regard to which they will humbly advise His Majesty to make a final order. They will preface their advice with an expression of opinion that there is no general charitable intent shown in this case and that the subscriptions were paid to the committee for the purpose of fulfilling a specific and well denned charitable purpose and that only. They think it right that they should in that respect express the opinion that they do, which agrees with that formed by the Chief Court of Oudh; and that, of course, was a very important matter which had to be discussed on the appeal.2. It now remains to state why their Lordships, have not been able to follow the decree which the Chief Court of Oudh made. The money having been paid over to the committee, a comple...
Tag this Judgment!