Mumbai Court November 1877 Judgments
Bapuji Apaji Vs. Senavaraji Marvadi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom231
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The transaction, the subject of the present suit for redemption, is comprised in two documents, identical in date, which documents must, we think, he taken together in order to ascertain the nature of the contract between the parties. The date of each is the 12th Jeth sud Shakh 1780 23rd Jun A.D. 1858. Of these documents, one (Exhibit 18) executed by the plaintiff's ancestors (the grantors) to the person whom the defendants represent (the grantee), recites a mortgage (dated 7th Magh sud Shakh 1776 24th Jan A.D. 1855 of the lands in question (consisting of upwards of ten bighas) by the former to the latter for Rs. 125, on which mortgage the parties agreed that there were, on the 12th Jeth sud Shakh 1780 (23rd June 1858) Rs. 200 due by the grantors to the grantee.2. This deed (Exhibit 18) further contained an agreement between the parties to it that the grantee should pay to Lakma Raghoji, a Marvadi, Rs. 75, which were due to him by the grantors, and described th...
Tag this Judgment!Nathu Ganesh Vs. Kalidas Umed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom365
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaintiff sued in the Ahmedabad Court of Small Causes, as alleged owner of certain moveable property under Rs. 500 in value, to recover that property or its value from the defendant, Kalidas Umed who had caused it to be attached in execution of a decree obtained by him against Vanarsi Rangji.2. The question is, whether the Court of Small Causes has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, it appearing that the plaintiff's claim had been rejected upon an application made by him under Section 246 of Act VIII of 1859, in the cause in which the decree, under which the attachment had been made, was passed. The Judge is of opinion in the affirmative, but has referred the question to this Court. Woomesh Chunder Bose v. Muddun Mohun Sircar 2 Cal. W.R. 44 is in point--the suit there having been brought, as here, by the alleged owner of the property attached--and supports the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes. Ram Dhun Biswas v. Kefal Biswas 10 Cal. W.R. 141 is di...
Tag this Judgment!Kachubhai BIn Gulabchand and anr. Vs. Krishnabai Kom Babaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom635
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff Krishnabai seeks to eject the defendant Harakchand from a house which he purchased under a decree for sale thereof in a suit brought by the defendant Kachubhai on a mortgage, dated 27th August 1872, executed to him by Chimnaji, a brother of the plaintiff's deceased husband, Babaji. The plaintiff claimed title through Babaji, to whom she alleged that, on a partition anterior to the mortgage, the house had been allotted. In support of that case she produced a deed of partition, dated the 19th March 1867, which appears to be a genuine instrument, but is unregistered. The Subordinate Judge and the District Judge concur in holding that deed to be inadmissible in evidence, and that secondary evidence of the partition is excluded by Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872). The deed speaks of the bulk of the family property as having been divided two or three years previously to its date, but recites that there remained undivided th...
Tag this Judgment!Kabir Valad Ramjan Vs. Mahadu Valad Shiwaji, a Minor, by His Administr ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-21-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom360
1. The Court concurs in the opinion of the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Jalgaon, that the action brought to recover costs of the proceedings, under Act XX of 1864, will not lie, and was rightly dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Chintaman Vs. Kalu Raju and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom362
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We are of opinion that the agreement was executed without consideration, and thus being a 'nudum pactum,' the suit founded upon it is unsustainable. The plaintiff, having accepted a vakalatnama from the defendants upwards of two months previously to the execution of the agreement, was already bound to render his best services as a pleader to them in suit No. 723 of 1875, and had, as appears from the agreement itself, accepted that vakalatnama upon the terms of receiving him usual fee as a pleader. It must not, however, be supposed that we regard the appearance of that circumstance on the face of the agreement as a matter of importance. It is one which, in the absence of any express stipulation to the contrary, the law would imply when a pleader is retained by a party to a suit. There was no fresh consideration proceeding from the plaintiff when he obtained the agreement of the 16th October; He could not be more firmly bound by it to render to the defendants his...
Tag this Judgment!Khando Narayan Kulkarni Vs. Apaji Sadashiv Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-19-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom370
West, J.1. In this case the owner of an eighth of a kulkarni's vatan sues the owner of another eighth share for a declaration of his right to officiate as the sole representative of the particular branch of the vatandar family to which they both belong. The lower Courts have rejected the claim as one of which their cognizance was barred by Bombay Act III of 1874. In special appeal it is urged that the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil Courts over such cases, having been previously established and exercised in numerous decisions, could not be withdrawn except by an express enactment which the Vatandars Act does not contain. Though the Collector may have full power, it is argued, to determine who shall officiate and even who shall be recognized as amongst the class of those capable of officiating, yet, as to the abstract rights of the sharers inter se, the civil Courts may pronounce still as they did formerly before the passing of the new Act.2. The plaintiff claims a right to perform t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›