SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1921 Supreme(SC) 77

LORD CARSON, LORD ATKINSON, LORD BUCKMASTER, SIR JOHN EDGE
B HAIDAS SHIVDAS – Appellant
Versus
BAI GULAB – Respondent


Advocates:
Solicitor for appellant:E. Dalgado. Solicitors for respondents: Hughes & Sons.

Judgement

Appeal (No. 123 of 1919) from a judgment and decree of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction, affirming a decree of the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction.

The suit related to the will of Nathoo Moolji, a Gujarati Hindu who died on December 8, 1894, and to the respective estates and interests taken by the testators widow &nd his two daughters. The material terms of the will appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The suit was brought by the appellant, as heir of the testators daughter Diwali who died in 1906. The daughter Jamnabai took possession of the estate upon the death of the testators widow, and remained in possession until her death in 1911, whereupon the respondents came into possession and took out letters of administration to her estate.

The appeal came before the Board originally in February, 1921, and was then allowed upon a question of procedure (see L. R. 48 I. A. 181). Subsequently the appeal was restored to the list by consent for trial upon the merits.

The views of the learned judges before whom the suit and appeals were heard in India were shortly as follows. The trial judge (Macleod J.) held that the widow took only a Hind


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top