Mumbai Court July 1939 Judgments
Haridas Kisandas Gujarati Vs. Narayandas Jagmohandas Gujarati
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom181; (1940)42BOMLR283
N.J. Wadia, J.1. The litigation out of which this appeal arises has been caused by the adoption of plaintiff No. 1 Narayandas by plaintiff No. 2 Parwatibai, widow of one Jugmohandas Kisandas Gujarati. Jugmohandas died at the age of about fifty on January 1, 1919. He had at the time of his death an elder brother Madhavdas, and a younger brother Haridas, who was defendant No. 1 in the trial Court and who is appellant No. 1 in this Court. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3, Govinddas and Goverdhandas, are the sons of Bhikoobai, the only daughter of Madhavdas. At the time whenJugmohandas: died, the three brothers were joint, and the family continued to be joint till the date of the suit. None of the three brothers had any son. Madhavdas. had an only daughter Bhikoobai; Jugmohandas and Haridas had no children.. Madhavdas died at the age of about seventy on May 24, 1931. The plaintiffs allege that plaintiff No. 2 Parwatibai adopted Narayandas as a son to her deceased husband Jugmohandas on November 17,...
Tag this Judgment!Bhupendra Mohan Roy Vs. Srimati Purna Sashi Debi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1939
Reported in: (1939)41BOMLR1159
Romer, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court of Judicature at Fort William in Bengal dated May 20, 1935, reversing the judgment and decree of the First Additional Subordinate Judge of Dacca dated June 17, 1932, whereby he had dismissed with costs a suit brought by the first respondent Srimati Purna Sashi Debi (hereinafter called the respondent) against the appellants and others.2. The respondent is the widow of one Bhabendra Mohan Roy (hereinafter called the testator) who died on January 11, 1915, having made his will on the day preceding his death. He left a daughter surviving him but no son. He also left him surviving his three brothers (who are the appellants) and a step-brother, one Rajendra Mohan Roy.3. Inasmuch as the questions to be determined upon thisappeal are concerned with the proper construction and effect of the will, the material portions of it must be set out in full. They are as follows :2. If no son be born to me of my loins or if such a son dies afte...
Tag this Judgment!Hirji Ramji Vs. Daulatram Ratanji and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-03-1939
Reported in: AIR1940Bom117; (1939)41BOMLR1288
Kania, J.1. The first contention raised in this summons is that the counterclaim has not abated because (a) it is not necessary to insert a separate title as no other party than the parties to the original suit was impleaded in the counter-claim ; and (b) there being no other defendant to the counter-claim, the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 4, do not in terms apply. I do not agree with these contentions. Rule 130 of the High Court Rules, which permits the filing of a counter-claim, states that counter-claim shall have the same effect as a cross-suit. There are provisions the rules for service of the counter-claim, for making persons other than the original parties defendants to the counterclaim, filing of a reply to the counter-claim by the plaintiff or by the additional defendants, and a provision that in default of such a reply the defendant to the suit will be entitled to have the suit put on board for an ex pate decree on the counter-claim. Whether a separate title is made or not ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›