Mumbai Court April 1876 Judgments
Lallubhai Bapubhai Kandas Mulchand Ramdas Jagmohandas and Manikji Dhan ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1876
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom388
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. Mulji Nandlal, a Hindu of the Vania caste, died, on the 5th of January 1840, possessed of considerable moveable and immoveable property. The latter, with the single exception of a house and premises situate at Jambusir, in Guzerat, lay in the island of Bombay. He left no male issue, but his widow Sarasvatibai and his daughter Jethibai (called, in his will, Ben Jiethi) survived him. By that will, which was written in the Guzerathi language and character, and was dated the 2nd of January 1840, he appointed Gangadas Vizibhukandas and Trikamlal Avechuldas his executors. More translations than one of it have been put in evidence. We take the best of these translations as our guide to the contents of the will, namely, that made by our present chief translator, Mr. Flynn, on the 2nd September 1874. The appointment of Gangadas Vizbhukandas and Trikamlal Avechuldas as executors was made thus:2. 'To Shah Gangadas Vizbhukandas and Shah Trikamlal Avechuldas. Written by Sha...
Tag this Judgment!Reg Vs. Rama Bhivgowda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom223
1. The Court consider that the combined sentence passed under Section 314 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in a case of simultaneous convictions for several offences, must be considered a single sentence for the purpose of confirmation or appeal. The sentence of nine years' rigorous imprisonment in the present case, therefore, requires confirmation by the Sessions Judge (section 18). The proceedings are accordingly forwarded to the Sessions Judge for his order. Should he confirm the sentence wholly or in part, he should return the proceedings to this Court, in order that the appeal may be disposed of....
Tag this Judgment!Reg Vs. Shivya Son of Bhagowa and Three ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom219
Melvill, J.1. In this case it is admitted that if the so-called confessions of three of the prisoners be excluded from consideration, the convictions cannot be sustained. In fact, there is no other evidence of the smallest value in the case. These confessions were recorded by a Magistrate of the 3rd Class under Section 122 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They are signed by the prisoners, and the Magistrate has made on them the memorandum required by Section 122, certifying his belief that the confessions were voluntarily made. Several objections have been taken to the admission of these confessions, but the only one which requires serious consideration is the following. Section 122 requires that confessions recorded under that section shall be taken in the manner prescribed in Sections 345 and 346. One of the provisions of Section 346 is that the Magistrate shall certify under his own hand that the examination was taken in his presence and in his hearing, and contains accurately the...
Tag this Judgment!Parapa BIn Shivapa Vs. Raghapa BIn Hanmapa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom217
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. There were issues settled in this cause in the presence of the defendant's pleader, who, moreover, was permitted to cross-examine and did cross-examine the witnesses. Hence there is no ground for maintaining that the decree of the Subordinate Judge was ex parte. We reverse the decree of the District Judge, and direct him to proceed to hear the appeal on the merits. Costs of the special appeal to abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›