Mumbai Court January 1876 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
In Re: the Last Will and Testament of Ramchandra Lakshmanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom118
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We must uphold the finding of the Ecclesiastical Registrar. The annuity, although not payable until October 1877, is an item of property capable of present valuation. The provision in Section 12 of Act XVIII of 1869, that the whole amount secured for the payment of an annuity shall be taken to be ten times the annual payment, is in that same section expressly stated to be made for the purposes of that Act, and we do not see how we can extend it. It also seems to us that the provisions of Chapter III of Act VII of 1870 must be limited to suits, and cannot be held to apply to probates. The fee payable in respect of the probate of a will is fixed by Act VII of 1870, Schedule I, Clause 11, at 2 per cent, on the value of the property, and we consider that the value of this annuity for the purpose of determining the amount of probate fees must be taken to be the market value. In the present case, the annuity being mortgaged, the only interest in it passing under the ...
Devrav Krishna Vs. Halambhai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-24-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom87
West, J.1. In the former suit between the same parties who are now before the Court, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants had engaged to furnish him with a quantity of firewood to be procured from other persons, and sued for damages for its non-delivery. The defendants answered that they had acted merely as the plaintiff's agents in making a contract with a third party, and were not responsible for the fulfillment of the contract. The material issue raised by the Court of First Instance was, whether the defendants had themselves contracted to deliver the wood, and the decision was that they had not. After the case had been heard, the plaintiff sought to have another issue raised on the question of whether the defendants, as agents, were, by usage, liable for the non-fulfillment of the contract, but this was refused by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that it would essentially change the nature of the suit. In this the Subordinate Judge was quite right, as may be seen by referen...
In Re: Jagjivan Nanabhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-19-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom82
West, J.1. In arrest of those proceedings (the criminal proceedings), which are now pending, Jagjivan applies to us and urges, inter alia, that the proceedings before the Subordinate Judge of Thana were coram non judice, he having no authority to attach and sell immoveable property in execution of the decree of the Bombay Court of Small Causes, which itself could proceed against moveable property only. It was argued by Mr. Branson on his behalf that Section 287 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not give to the Subordinate Judge greater power in execution matters than the Court which passed the decree.2. We cannot say why, when the Legislature enacted Section 287 of the Civil Procedure Code, it allowed Section 78 of the Presidency Small Cause Court Act IX of 1850 to stand. Looking, however, to the wording of the former enactment, we find that it runs as follows: 'The copy of any decree, or of any order for execution, when filed in the Court to which it shall have been transmitted for t...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›