Skip to content


Fulvahu Vs. Goculdas Valabdas - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR9Bom275
AppellantFulvahu
RespondentGoculdas Valabdas
Excerpt:
practice - revivor--abatement--civil procedur code (xiv of 1882), sections 366, 371. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances ..........deal with the question of costs under section 366 might be open to doubt.bayley, j.2. i concur. as judge in chambers i was of opinion that the order applied for in this case should be granted. i felt doubtful,' however, as to whether i had power to make it, and, therefore, i referred the question to the court.3. that point being now settled, the alternative part of the summons will be made absolute.4. the following order was made:'this court doth order that the suit shak abate, and this court doth set aside such order for abatement, and doth order that the name of the said l. w. g. rivett-carnac, administrator of the property and credits of the plaintiff fulvahu, be entered in the places of the said fulvahu on the record, and that the name of the said dayal mulji, the alleged executor of.....
Judgment:

C. Sargent, C.J.

1. We approve of the ruling of Mr. Justice Wilson in Bhoyrub Dass Toburry v. Doman Thakoor I.L.R. 5 Cal. 139. The period of limitation for an application under Sections 366 and 271 of the Code is unaltered by Act XII of 1879. There is no objection I think to the proposed order being made by a Judge in chambers. Whether he could conveniently deal with the question of costs under Section 366 might be open to doubt.

Bayley, J.

2. I concur. As Judge in chambers I was of opinion that the order applied for in this case should be granted. I felt doubtful,' however, as to whether I had power to make it, and, therefore, I referred the question to the Court.

3. That point being now settled, the alternative part of the summons will be made absolute.

4. The following order was made:'This Court doth order that the suit shak abate, and this Court doth set aside such order for abatement, and doth order that the name of the said L. W. G. Rivett-Carnac, administrator of the property and credits of the plaintiff Fulvahu, be entered in the places of the said Fulvahu on the record, and that the name of the said Dayal Mulji, the alleged executor of the said defendant Goculdas Valabdas (now deceased) and Gomtibai, the widow, and Cursandas, the son of the said Goculdas Valabdas, be entered on the record in the place of the said defendant.'


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //