Mumbai Court July 1876 Judgments
Narayanacharya Vs. Narso Krishna and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom262
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. Subapa had two sons, Krishnapa and Sinapa (alias Shrinivas), who, it is alleged by the plaintiffs, inherited the house, the subject of this suit, from their father Subapa. While Krishnapa and Sinapa were undivided in estate, one undivided moiety of the house was, by public auction, sold by a Civil Court in execution of a decree obtained against Sinapa, and the other undivided moiety was also by public auction sold by the same Court to the defendant Narayanacharya in execution of a decree obtained against Sinapa and Krishnapa. Narso and Svajirav, the sons of Krishnapa, have brought their suit against Narayanacharya to recover two-thirds of a moiety of the house on the ground that at the time of the sale, to Narayanacharya they had a vested interest to that extent in their father's undivided moiety of the house. 2. On behalf of the defendant it has been questioned whether the house was ancestral property of Krishnapa and Sinapa, and alleged that they acquired it ...
Tag this Judgment!Reg. Vs. Lalubhai Gopaldass and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-22-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom232
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We think that, even if the Legislature intended what Mr. Inverarity contends it did, it has not expressed that intention, and this would be a case of quod voluit non dixit. We also think, however, that it had no such intention. Where it wished to make a rule about the selection of jurors for the trial of European British subjects, we find it doing so in express terms in Section 35. If Mr. Inverarity's contention were well founded, that the Legislature did intend that a prisoner not being a European British subject should be tried by a jury, of which the majority should be other than Europeans or Americans or both, we should have expected, after reading Section 35, to find another section expressly conferring an equivalent right on persons not being European British subjects. There being no such section, it seems to us that the contrary inference to that for which Mr. Inverarity contends is the one that should be drawn from the express provisions of the Act. The...
Tag this Judgment!Reg Vs. Govinda
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-18-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom342
Melvill, J.1. I understand that these proceedings have been referred to me under Section 271-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order that I may decide whether the offence committed by the prisoner was murder, or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.2. For convenience of comparison, the provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code may be stated thus:Section 299.A person commits culpable homicide, if the act by which the death is caused is done(a) With the intention of causing death;(b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death:(c) With the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.Section 300.Subject to certain exceptions, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done (1) With the intention of causing death;(2) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused;(3) With the intention of causing bodi...
Tag this Judgment!Abba Haji Ishmail Vs. Abba Thara
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-15-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom253
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The defendant is right. There is no appeal from that order, but we do not in the least degree sympathize with him in his struggle to deprive his attorney of his costs. I may also add that we are of opinion that Mr. Justice Bayley's order was perfectly right....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›