Mumbai Court June 1876 Judgments
Shepherd Vs. the Trustees of the Port of Bombay
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-26-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom477
Green, J.1. The first issue raises the question whether the words used in the resolution of 10th February, and in effect reiterated in that of 17th February, amount to a libel, i.e., apart from the question whether there be foundation in fact for so using such words, and apart from the question of the occasion and circumstances of publication, whether it is, in law, a libel to write and publish of another, and in particular of a contractor for the conveyance by steamers of goods and passengers, 'Mr. Shepherd's offer of Rs. 520 in full of all claims should be accepted, but any further transactions with him should be avoided, if possible.' I cannot doubt that it is. No doubt, when the whole turn of the phrase in question, in the present case, is considered, taking it in connection with the introductory part of the resolution (which also was published), it may not be a libel of the more serious character. But I am of opinion that such words, even taking them in connection with what preced...
Tag this Judgment!Kalova Kom Bhujangrav Vs. Padapa Valad Bhujangrav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom248
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. Independently of any claim which the plaintiff may now have, or may, by lapse of time, have lost, to the property of the deceased Bhujangrav, we think that he is within time to maintain against Balapa this suit to set aside his adoption, which took place in 1872, the year in which this suit was instituted; Clause 16 of Section 1 of Act XIV of 1859 being the enactment applicable to such a case previously to the coming into force of Act IX of 1871, Schedule II, Article 129, as decided by the High Court of Calcutta in Mrinmoyee Dabea v. Bhoobunmoyee Dabea (15 Beng. L.R. 1, S.C., 23 Cal. W.R. 42 Civ. Rul.). It has been argued that, inasmuch as the fact, that the plaintiff is the son of Bhujangrav, was, with regard to immoveable property, disputed in the Christian year 1849 before the Collector, this suit must be regarded as barred by lapse of time; but this is not a suit to recover the immoveable property, and we do not intend to decide in it whether or not the pla...
Tag this Judgment!Veribhai and anr. Vs. Raghabhai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom225
Melvill, J.1. We are of opinion that there is nothing in Bombay Act V of 1862 which debars a Civil Court from making a decree for the partition of Narvadari land among the Narvadars. It is possible that the revenue authorities might object to execute such a decree, but the plaintiffs inform the Court that they do not anticipate such objection, and they are content to take a decree for partition. They have proved their right to four and a half out of the five shares held by themselves and the defendants, and also to the mesne profits claimed by them, and we, therefore, amend the decree of the Court below, and award the plaintiffs' claim in full, with all costs on the defendants throughout....
Tag this Judgment!Reg Vs. Hanmant Gavda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-14-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom228
Melvill, J.1. Assuming that there is evidence on the record to prove that the cotton was found in a room occupied jointly by the prisoner and his mother, and assuming that this fact is sufficient to constitute possession by the prisoner, we still think that such possession, even though accompanied by a knowledge that the cotton was adulterated, would not be sufficient to sustain a conviction. The Magistrate says: 'There is, it is true, no direct evidence as to the appellant having personally adulterated, or caused to be adulterated, the cotton in question (that the cotton is adulterated by an admixture of dirt and seed is not even denied by appellant); and, in fact, it would be simply unreasonable to expect that the Cotton Department should bring forward actual eye-witnesses of the ginning and packing of cotton which may be seized by the Department; but under ordinary circumstances, when cotton in considerable quantities is found in dokras in a man's possession, and such cotton is foun...
Tag this Judgment!Maniklal Atmaram Vs. Manohershi Dinsha Coachman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-06-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom269
Green, J.1. The first question is, having regard to the construction to be put on the will of Bhugwan Kulla, and the events that have happened, what is the position and what are the rights of the plaintiff? As to the construction to be put on the will, it is to be observed, in the first place, that there does not appear to be any general disposition of the testator's property unless such general disposition be contained in the 1st and 11th clauses. The executors named as such in the will have various powers given to them by the will, but I do not find any gift to them of the estate. Taking the 1st clause alone, there would, in my opinion, be a gift of the whole estate to the widow, subject, of course, to the legacies, and devises, pecuniary and specific, contained in the will, and subject to the performance of the purposes and objects declared in the will. But the 2nd clause, in conjunction with the 11th clause, shows, in my opinion, that the testator did not intend that his wife shoul...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›