Mumbai Court September 1876 Judgments
The Collector of Thana Vs. Dadabhai Bomanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-26-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom352
Melvill, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff seeks to remove an attachment placed by the Collector of Thana on a cocoanut oart or garden situated in the outskirts of the town of Bandora in Salsette, which the Collector has attached in order to levy payment of a fine of Rs. 2,340, being sixty times the assessment on the oart, imposed as a penalty in consequence of the plaintiff having built a bungalow in the oart without the Collector's permission.2. A preliminary question arises regarding the sufficiency of the stamp upon the plaint. We agree with the Assistant Judge that the stamp is sufficient, and, therefore, the additional amount which the District Judge has levied from the plaintiff must be refunded. Clause viii., Section 7 of Act VII of 1870, prescribes that in suits to set aside an attachment of land, or of an interest in land or revenue, the fee shall be according to the amount for which the land or interest was attached: provided that, where such amount exceeds the value of the la...
Tag this Judgment!Banapa and anr. Vs. Sundardas Jagjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom333
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The deed (Exhibit No. 3), dated 20th May 1868, purports to be a sale of the property mentioned therein by the defendants to Haridas, since deceased, and who is represented by his brother Sundardas as his heir. That sale is, in the deed, stated to be in consideration of Rs. 1,000 paid to Venkan Bhat, who was a creditor of the defendants to that amount. The plaintiff seeks to eject the defendants from a house at Bijapur forming part of the property mentioned in the deed. The defendants admit that they executed the deed, and do not allege that they were induced so to do by fraud or intimidation on the part of Haridas, the vendee, or that they were under any mistake in fact or in law, or any fact invalidating it, or other circumstance bringing them within the exceptions in Proviso 1 to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, I of 1872. The defendants, however, allege that, contemporaneously with the deed of sale, they entered into an oral agreement with Haridas that...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Nathibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-21-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR2Bom9
Green, J.1. This is an application by one Jaikisondas Gopaldas for a grant of letters of administration to himself of the goods, chattels, rights, and credits of the above-named Nathibai, who died, on the 19th February 1876 in Bombay, intestate, a widow and without issue, and leaving property within the Presidency of Bombay and within the local jurisdiction of this Court.2. To this application a caveat has been entered by the above-named Harkisondas Hullochandas and Mathuradas Purshotamdas. One Motilal Damodhar (though not having himself entered a caveat), has filed an affidavit in support of the caveat so as aforesaid entered. One Ganpatlal, the son of one Dulabdas, has presented a petition and appeared at the second day's hearing, the object of the petition being to bring to the attention of the Court that he and his said father object to the application being granted. The question for decision is, whether the applicant, as nearest in blood to the deceased Nathibai, is entitled to he...
Tag this Judgment!Narsingrav Ramchandra Vs. Luxumanrav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom318
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The appellant complains that the plaint in this suit originally instituted against the father of the minor defendant, has been improperly returned to the appellant, since the minor and the administrator of his estate under Act XX of 1864 (the Collector) have been made parties, on the ground that the Subordinate Judge is precluded by Act XIV of 1869, Section 32, from entertaining a suit in which an officer of Government in his official capacity, is a defendant. For the appellant it is contended that the Collector is acting as the officer of the Court which appoints him administrator of the estate of the infant, and not as an officer of Government. But we think that Sections 11 and 15 of Act XX of 1864, taken together, show that the Collector, when appointed to take charge of the estate of a minor, is so in his capacity as Collector, and, therefore, as an officer of Government. When a Collector is transferred to another district, his successor as Collector succee...
Tag this Judgment!Reg Vs. Sambhu Raghu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom347
1. The Acting Sessions Judge has considered this, case very carefully, and the Court agrees in his conclusion. The Court does not find it established that there is any valid custom by which a woman of the caste of the first accused can claim a right to marry again, because her husband is a leper, and without having obtained a release from him. The Court does not recognize the authority of the caste to declare a marriage void, or to give permission to a woman to re-marry. The wife in this case, and the appellant, who performed the ceremony of re-marriage, probably acted in a bond fide belief that the consent of the caste made the second marriage valid; but though that circumstance may be taken into account in mitigation of punishment, it does not constitute a defence to a charge under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code, or under that section combined with Section 109 of the Code. The Court confirms the conviction; but, as the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for 25 days, i...
Tag this Judgment!Tukaram BIn Atmaram Vs. Ramchandra BIn Budharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-05-1876
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom314
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaintiff claims under a mortgage of the 27th November 1871 for Rs. 50, which was unregistered and unaccompanied by possession. The defendant claims under a mortgage of the 17th March 1873 for Rs. 150, which was registered, and which was accompanied by possession. The plaintiff has not alleged that the defendant, when he took his mortgage with possession, had notice of the plaintiff's unregistered mortgage; and the plaintiff not being in possession, and his mortgage being unregistered, there cannot be any presumption that the defendant had any such notice. Further, the plaintiff obtained, on the 20th February 1874, in a suit instituted in 1873, a money-decree against the mortgagors (but not in respect of the mortgage) for Rs. 100, and caused the mortgaged property to be attached and sold by the Court. The defendant (being in possession as a mortgagee of 1873) purchased the mortgaged premises for Rs. 86 at that sale on the 17th September 1874, and holds an u...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›