Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: mediation Year: 1916 Page 1 of about 215 results (0.019 seconds)

Feb 10 1916 (PC)

Abdul HussaIn Rowthan Vs. Mahomad Ibrahim Rowthar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-10-1916

Reported in : 35Ind.Cas.243

..... have been purchased by his friends and had come back to him by transfer from them before the date of the suit. further, the evidence as to the alleged mediation under which the settlement was effected is meagre and unsatisfactory, and the 1st defendant has failed to produce the accounts of the deceased or to account for his failure ..... really any family settlement in this case. the evidence of defendant's third witness is to the effect that about ten persons belonging to the village took part in mediating between the parties. only two of them have been called and no reason has been shown why the other persons said to have been present have not been cited ..... to show the nature of the enquiry they held; the evidence of the two alleged mediators does not impress me as being true. the defendant's 5th witness says that he acted on behalf of the plaintiff and his mother. he admits: 1 did ..... scrap of paper has been produced to show what enquiries were made and who took part in them. it is admitted that no written reference was made to mediate, nor was any written award passed. the evidence relating to the settlement of the disputes among the members of the family by ..... mediators does not convince me as reliable, and i am not prepared to act on it.22. what has led me to hesitate a great deal in giving .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 28 1916 (PC)

Dwarka Nath Ash Vs. Priya Nath Malki and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Aug-28-1916

Reported in : 36Ind.Cas.792

..... and not directly to g and the consideration was furnished by p. bat he proceeded to hold that although, no party to the contract had an equitable right through the mediation f the agreement to p, as shown by a decision of lord hardwicke to the same effect. there had been no communication of the agreement bat wean p and w .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 19 1916 (PC)

Musammat Girja Bai Vs. Sadashiv Dhundiraj

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : May-19-1916

Reported in : (1916)18BOMLR621

..... . ho himself bought the stamp, and first asked mr. bapurao dada, the family lawyer, to institute the litigation; but finding him disinclined to do so, because ho was engaged in mediating to bring about a compromise, harihar had the plaint presented by another legal adviser, leaving mr. bapurao dada to appear for the defendants.16. and they go on to say .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 28 1916 (PC)

Bollapragada Ramamurthy Trading Under the Name and Style of Bollapraga ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Apr-28-1916

Reported in : 35Ind.Cas.575; (1916)31MLJ231

..... the limitation of time, if they decide that i should pay any amount to you, i shall pay it immediately to you. if, perhaps, for any reason the said three mediators do not give their decision, it is settled that, on this letter, suit etc., proper steps may be taken and conducted in the court without having anything to do with .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 1916 (PC)

Jadab Sardar and ors. Vs. Gobinda Chandra Mondal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : May-25-1916

Reported in : 34Ind.Cas.912

..... landlord. now section 4, clause (c), which specifies the different classes of tenants under the bengal tenancy act, shows that an under-raiyat is a tenant holding, whether immediately or mediately, under a raiyat. consequently the landlord of an under-raiyat is a raiyat, in other words z must establish that he holds under a raiyat. this he cannot do, for .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 08 1916 (PC)

Sri Sri Sri Ramachendra Marda Raja Deo Garu Minor by His Agent and Nex ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-08-1916

Reported in : 35Ind.Cas.640

..... -estimated the crop for the current fasli, that the ryots not agreeing to the estate's estimate sent a notice to the taluk officer to have the crop estimated by mediators within two days of the receipt of their letter, stating that, if he would not do so, the crop would be cut and heaped in the threshing-floor, and that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 02 1916 (PC)

Ramasami Naidu and ors. Vs. Gomathi Alias Avudai Ammal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-02-1916

Reported in : 33Ind.Cas.521

..... really the plaintiffs in the suit had no case at all and what they got was probably given them more for the peace of the family and in deference to mediators, as is often the case.4. in support of this view i may also point out that the present 1st plaintiff never in any way at that time challenged what .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 1916 (PC)

Jagrani Vs. Bisheshar Dube and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-24-1916

Reported in : (1916)ILR38All366

henry richards, c.j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit for possession of immovable property brought by one musammat jagrani misrani. the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiffs suit. the court of first appeal confirmed this decree and a learned judge of this court dismissed the second appeal.2. nirban dube had three sons, gulab dube, chandrika dube and ramphal dube. chandrika dube left him surving his widow and his daughter (the present plaintiff). on the death of chandrika dube the name of the widow was recorded, and continued to be recorded up to the time of her death. ramphal dube had a son mulai dube. the defendants are the sons of mulai dube. on the death of the widow of chandrika dube disputes arose between jagrani on the one side and mulai dube on the other as to whose name should be recorded.. apparently jagrani was claiming that the sons of nirban dube were separate, that on the death of her father chandrika dube his widow was not only recorded but she was entitled to the property, and that upon the death of the widow the plaintiff became entitled to the property for the estate of a hindu female. mulai dube, on the other hand, was apparently claiming that chandrika dube and ramphal dube were joint and that the name of the widow of chandrika was recorded merely for consolation. it has been definitely found by the court below that chandrika dube and ramphal dube were separate. on this finding it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 24 1916 (PC)

Musammat Jagrani MisraIn Vs. Bisheshar Dube and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Decided on : Mar-24-1916

Reported in : AIR1916All1; 35Ind.Cas.701

henry richards, c.j.1. this appeal arises out of a suit for possession of immoveable property brought by one musammat jagrani misrain. the court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit. the court of first appeal confirmed this decree and a learned judge of this court dismissed the second appeal.2. nirban dube had three sons, gulab dube, chandrika dube and ramphal dube. chandrika dube left him surviving his widow and his daughter (the present plaintiff). on the death of chandrika dube the name of the widow was recorded and continued to be recorded up to the time of her death. ramphal dube had a son, mulai dube. the defendants are the sons of mulai dube. on the death of the widow of chandrika dube disputes arose between jagrani on the one side and mulai dubo on the other as to whose name should be recorded. apparently jagrani was claiming that the sons of nirban dube were separate, that on the death of her father chandrika jjube his widow was riot only recorded but she was entitled to the property, and that upoij the death of the widow the plaintiff became entitled to the property for the estate of a hindu female. mulai dube, on the other hand, was apparently claiming that chandrika dube and rampbal dube were joint and that the name of the widow of chandrika was recorded merely for consolation. it has been definitely found by the court below that chandrika dube and ramphal dube were separate. on this finding it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 11 1916 (PC)

Mirza Sadik HusaIn Khan Vs. Nawab Saiyed Hashim Ali Khan

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jul-11-1916

Reported in : (1916)18BOMLR1037

atkinson, j.1. these are consolidated appeals from two decrees of the court of the judicial commissioner of oudh, lucknow, both dated the 13th november, 1911, which reversed in part and modified in part two decrees, each dated the 25th october, 1909, of the court of the subordinate judge of k lucknow.2. the first of the two suits in which those last-mentioned decrees were made, namely, that numbered 76 of 1907, the appeal in which is no. 121 of 1913, was instituted by mirza sadik husain khan, the appellant in both the present appeals to enforce a mortgage dated the 26th june, 1900, executed in his favour by the third respondent in the first appeal, namely nawab ummat-ul-fatima, in her own right, and also as guardian of her two sons, then minors, the first and second respondents in the first appeal, to secure the repayment of 20,000 rupees admittedly advanced by the mortgagee to this lady, with interest at one per cent, per mensem.3. the second of these suits, namely, that numbered 51 of 1908, the appeal in which is numbered 134 of 1913, was instituted by the respondents nawab saiyed hashim ali khan and nawab kasim ali khan, the latter by his guardian against this same mortgagee and one sultan mirza, claiming to be the stepbrother of the plaintiffs, for a declaration that a second mortgage made by the said sultan mirza of his share in all the family property in this mortgagee's favour, to secure the repayment of a sum of 8,000 rupees with interest, was a nullity, on the ground .....

Tag this Judgment!


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