Mumbai Court February 1877 Judgments
Reg Vs. Hanmanta
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom610
Melvill, J.1. In this case fourteen persons were tried in the Sessions Court of Thana for being concerned in the fraudulent cutting and removal of wood from the Government forests in Alibagh. They were all acquitted with the exception of the first accused, Hanmanta, who was convicted on two out of twenty-seven heads of charge. Against this conviction Hanmanta has appealed. On the other hand the Government of Bombay has appealed against the acquittal of Hanmanta on the other charges, and against the acquittal of twelve out of the remaining thirteen accused persons on all the charges. The appeal against Appaji, No. 14, was withdrawn at the commencement of the hearing, it being admitted that the evidence against him was insufficient for conviction. The Government of Bombay succeeded in serving a notice of the appeal on only six out of the remaining accused persons: and, therefore, it is only as against those six persons that we have been able to hear the appeal.2. At a very early stage of...
Tag this Judgment!The Secretary of State for India Vs. Sir Albert Sassoon and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom513
Charles Sargent, J.1. It appears from this statement of facts that the demised premises consisted of two portions marked, in the plan annexed to the lease, A and B, on the first of which an annual rent of Rs. 500 per acre was reserved, whilst on the latter, described as 'being at times covered by the sea,' a purely nominal annual rent of one rupee per acre was reserved--power, however, being given to the lessees to reclaim the same or any part thereof from the sea--in which case an enhanced annual rent of Rs. 500 per acre was reserved on the land so reclaimed. The question, therefore, whether the site of the dock, which is admittedly a portion of the demised premises marked 'B,' is liable to pay the enhanced rent of Rs. 500 or the originally reserved rent of one rupee per acre, must depend upon the answer to be given to the question, whether or no it has been reclaimed from the sea, within the meaning of the lease? It was contended for the lessees that the ordinary meaning of the expre...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu BIn Bhiwaji Vs. Vishram Mawaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom543
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. This Court, on the authority of the Calcutta cases Nanhoon Singh v. Tofanee Singh 12 Beng. L.R. 113 and Jeebraj Singh v. Inderjeet Mahtoon 12 Ben. L.R. 115 and of Bai Mahkor v. Bulakhi Chaku, (supra p 538) reverses the order of the District Judge and restores that of the Subordinate Judge with costs; but, in accordance with the course followed in the last-mentioned case, directs that the plaint be returned to the plaintiff in order that he may, if so advised, present the same in the proper Court....
Tag this Judgment!Narhar Govind Kulkarni Vs. Narayan Vithal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-14-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom607
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. It is unnecessary to resort to the doctrine of factum valet (if it to at all admissible in such a case) to uphold the adoption made by Ambabai, the adoptive mother of the plaintiff (respondent).2. What may be or have been the right of Government to regulate adoption by the owners of principalities, in a point which it is unnecessary for us to consider. We have here simply to deal with the office of a Kulkarni and its appendant rights or vatan. No authority either in a text book of Hindu law nor in the reports has been cited to show that the sanction of Government to an adoption by a Kulkarni, or his widow, or by a co-parcener in a Kulkarniship, or his widow, is necessary to give it validity, or that Government has any right to prohibit or otherwise intervene in such an adoption. It has been argued for the appellant (the defendant) that Government ought to have a voice in such a matter in order to insure to itself a succession of suitable hereditary officers. No...
Tag this Judgment!Umabai Widow of Shankarrav Vs. Bhavu Padmanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom557
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. This Court does not agree in the opinion of the District Judge that Hindus, though not born blind, are, if they become incurably blind, thereby rendered incapable of inheritance. See Murariji Gokaldas v. Parvatibai I.L.R. 1 Bom. 177 and Anunta v. Ramabai (supra, p. 554), in which latter case the incurable diseases, which incapacitate for inheritance, are mentioned. But, inasmuch as he has found as facts, that Padmanji and Bhavu were separate in estate, and that the house in dispute was purchased for Bhavu as his absolute property with funds supplied for the purpose by Kashi, his maternal grand-mother, the Court affirms the District Judge's decree with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Gurushidgavda BIn Rudragavda Vs. Rudragavdati Kom Dymangavda and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom531
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The Assistant Judge has misunderstood the case of Babaji Hari v. Ralaram Balled I.L.R. 1 Bom. 75, to which he refers, and the nature of this suit. This suit does not seek to obtain 'anything payable on the part of Government in respect of an office,' or even a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to anything so payable, but seeks a declaration of the plaintiff's eligibility to officiate as patil of Lokur. Such a suit is not prohibited by Act XXIII of 1871, which, moreover, is an Act that should receive a strict construction as being in derogation of the right of the subject to resort to the ordinary Civil Courts: Ravji Narayan Mandlik v. The Mamlatdar of Ratnagiri (supra, p. 523). It was only so far as the plaintiff in Babaji Hari v. Rajaram Ballal I.L.R. 1 Bom. 75 sought a declaration that he was entitled to a share in allowances paid from the Government Treasury, that the High Court held that his civil suit was affected by Act XXIII of 1871. That suit w...
Tag this Judgment!Honamma Vs. Timannabhat and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom559
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We adhere to the opinion expressed in Parvati v. Bhiku 4 Bom. H.C. Rep. 25, that since Act XXI of 1850 came into force, mere loss of caste does not occasion a forfeiture of rights or property. We, therefore, proceed to consider this case independently of the fact that the defendant has been put out of caste. On the findings of the learned District Judge we must regard the defendant as guilty of incontinence since the date of the decree in appeal No. 102 of 1867, made by Mr. West, when Judge of Kanara, and affirmed here in special appeal. The Judge in the present suit says that it is asserted that she is still living in that condition; but he does not positively find that allegation to be true--and he does state that she resides with her mother-in-law.2. The Hindu law books of especial force in this Presidency--Mayukha, Ch. IV, Section 8, pl. 9; Mitakshara, Ch. II, Section 1, pl. 37, 38--support the position that even an incontinent widow is entitled to a bare m...
Tag this Judgment!Khandu Dubladas Vs. Tarachand Amarchand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom574
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaintiffs and defendant's mortgages were both for sums exceeding Rs. 100. Act XX of 1866, under which the defendant's mortgage was registered, makes no provision in such cases for priority of deeds of sale or mortgages registered under that Act over deeds of sale or mortgages which might have been, but were not, registered under Act XIX of 1843. We cannot, therefore, adopt the view taken by the Assistant Judge of the consequence of the non-registration of the plaintiff's mortgage which was executed on the 26th July 1860, and was, therefore, registrable under Act XIX of 1843, the defendant's mortgage having been executed on the 20th October 1869, and registered under Act XX of 1866.2. The authorities relied upon by the Assistant Judge were cases in which all of the conflicting documents were registrable under Act XIX of 1843, and, therefore, are inapplicable to the present case, in which one of the mortgages only was registrable under that Act, and the othe...
Tag this Judgment!Ananta Vs. Ramabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-01-1877
Reported in: (1877)ILR1Bom554
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We think that we must regard the Assistant Judge as having found that the land, the subject of this suit, was undivided at the time of its sale by Nagu, (November 17th, 1868), to the plaintiff Ramabai, and that fact does not now seem to be in controversy.2. The contention of the appellant (the second defendant) Ananta is that an issue ought to have been directed to ascertain whether the leprosy, with which it is admitted he is afflicted, is congenital. His learned pleader has referred in support of that view to Manu, Ch. IX, pl. 201, 'Eunuchs and out-castes, persons born blind or deaf, mad men, idiots, the dumb, and such as have lost the use of a limb, are excluded from heritage,' but neither that text nor Calluca Bhatta's Commentary upon it applies to the case of leprosy. The word Nirindriya' rendered, as we think rightly, by Sir W. Jones, as in that passage meaning 'such as have lost the use of a limb,' I.L.R. 1 Bom. 185 could not, even in its more extended s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›