Mumbai Court December 1877 Judgments
Lakshman Ramchandra Joshi and anr. Vs. Satyabhamabai, Widow of Govind ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom494
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The first question, raised at the hearing of this appeal, was whether the cause of action alleged by the plaintiff is res judicata. We have already, during the argument, stated our opinion to be that, inasmuch as the former suit brought by her was for maintenance from the year 1864 to the year 1866, and the decree made therein against Mahadev Narayan personally was not prospective and not against the ancestral estate, and the present suit is for maintenance from 11th June 1869 to 5th October 1872 and for an allotment of future maintenance out of the ancestral estate, this suit is not res judicata.2. I may observe, however, that it is to be regretted that, in the former suit, an order, awarding to the plaintiff future maintenance, was not included in the decree. It is not desirable that there should be several suits in respect of the maintenance of one widow. The system of seeking or granting relief piecemeal, subjects both plaintiff and defendant to much unnece...
Tag this Judgment!imperatrix Vs. Lakshman Sakharam Vaman Hari and Balaji Krishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom481
West, J.1. In the appeal before us, Mr. Gill, the counsel for Lakshman, has taken objection, on his behalf, to the sufficiency of the sanction given by the District Magistrate. He contends that, under Section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no complaint can be entertained for any offence whatever against any public servant not removeable from his office without the sanction of the Government, except with the sanction of the Government itself; and that the sanction by the District Magistrate, besides being vague and indefinite, is insufficient. He referred to the case of Regina v. Parashram Keshav 7 Bom. H.C. Rep. 61, in which it was held that Section 167 of the superseded Code of Criminal Procedure, which corresponds with Section 466 of the one now in force, required such sanction to give jurisdiction to the trying Court, and that a conviction, founded on evidence taken without such sanction, was bad. He argued that Section 466 does not restrict itself to chapter IX or any other...
Tag this Judgment!Narsinbhat BIn Bapubhat Vs. Chenapa BIn Ningapa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom479
Michael Westeopp, C.J.1. This is a suit against Chenapa on a bond executed by his brother Parapa as surety for one Rango. Parapa died on 7th August 1874 leaving a son, Ningangavda. This suit was instituted against Parapa on the 1st December 1874. Ningangavda died on the 2nd July 1875. Parapa Ningangavda, and the defendant Chenapa were, at the decease of Parapai members of an undivided Hindu family. Ningangavda and Chenapa continued undivided until the death, of Ningangavda. On his death Chenapa became, by survivorship, entitled to the whole of the family property. No separate property belonging to Parapa or Ningangavda is shown to have come to the hands of Chenapa or to exist. Chenapa, in his written statement filed on the 12th 'June 1875, objected that Ningangavda ought to be made a party to the suit, but he never was made a party to it. Chenapa never was personally responsible for the separate debt of his brother Parapa, or nephew Ningangavda, and the joint family property, which has...
Tag this Judgment!Satku Valad Kadir Sausare Vs. Ibrahim Aga Valad Mirza Aga
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-12-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom457
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaintiffs, who are Mussulmans, sue to establish their alleged right to carry tabuts in procession along a certain road for immersion in the sea. They aver that the defendants have obstructed them in so doing, and that the Magistrate, at the instance of the defendants, has made an order prohibiting the plaintiffs from using the road for that purpose.2. This claim is resisted by the defendants, also Mussulmans, who allege that the road, along which the plaintiffs wish to carry their tabuts, passes through the mohola (quarter of the town) of the defendants, and close to their musjid, and that the plaintiffs have no right of way along that road, but that there is another and a public road, whereby the sea is accessible to them, which road they have hitherto used for the same purpose.3. The defendants also relied upon the law of limitation.4. The Subordinate Judge found that the suit was barred by that law. The District Judge reversed his decision, and held tha...
Tag this Judgment!Basawa and Gurbasawa Heirs of Parapa Vs. Kalkapa Sharbana and Sidoji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom489
West, J.1. When Kalkapa obtained from Sidoji the mortgage for Rs. 6,000 on which he now sues (No. 3, dated 6th February 1873), the mortgage of 1869 to Basalinga, representing Parapa, was still unsatisfied. It is referred to in exhibit No. 3, and the money, it is recited, is borrowed in part for the purpose of paying it off. Parapa subsequently, suing Sidoji to enforce his earlier lien, obtained a decree for possession on the 10th November 1873, under which he was put into possession on the 22nd December 1873.2. Kalkapa has now come forward seeking possession on his mortgage; and he says that the decree in favour of Parapa was obtained by collusion with Sidoji, Parapa's claim having, in fact, been satisfied by an intermediate transaction of the 18th June 1873. To establish this transaction, Kalkapa put in evidence a document (No. 45) called a receipt, but intended, if authentic, to entirely release Parapa's claim, through Basalinga, under the mortgage of 1869. This instrument seems not ...
Tag this Judgment!Shankara BIn Marabasapa Vs. Hanma BIn Bhima and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-06-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom470
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The Assistant Judge has found in substance that the plaintiff is the hereditary holder of the office of Chalvadi, or bearer, on public occasions, of the insignia or symbols of the Lingayet caste at Bagalkot;. but that, though members of the caste may bestow voluntary gratuities on the Chalvadi, there are not any fees, as of right, appurtenant to that office. It is, therefore, clear that an action by the plaintiff against an intruder upon his office, who has been paid such gratuities, if the action be brought merely for moneys received by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff, will not lie--Boyter v. Dodsworth 6 Term. Rep. 681, Muhammad Yussub v. Sayad Ahmed (1 Bom. H.C. Rep., Appx. xviii), Sitarambhat v. Sitaram Ganesh, per Couch, C.J. 6 Bom. H.C. Rep. A.C.J. 250, Vithal Krishna Joshi v. Anant Ramchandra 11 Bom. H.C. Rep. 6. So far, therefore, as the plaintiff seeks to recover moneys paid to the defendant in his usurped character of Chalvadi by members of t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›