Mumbai Court June 1877 Judgments
Nowlaooma Vs. Bala Dhurmaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom91
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. It is admitted that the defendant, by deed of the 8th November 1869, mortgaged a house at Mazagon to certain Marvadis That mortgage contained a power of sale in the event of the mortgage money not being duly repaid at the time fixed. The defendant alleges that he was drunk when he executed that mortgage, and that it was obtained from him by fraud, but he does not appear to have added that it was without consideration. He admits that, on the 10th of January 1872, he executed, in favour of the same Marvadis, a deed of further charge on the same house. This deed the defendant alleges to have been obtained from him by fraud and without consideration.2. The Marvadis sold the house, on the 4th November 1873, to the plaintiff under the power of sale contained in the first mortgage, that of the 8th November 1869. The learned Chief Judge of the Court of Small Causes does not state whether the vendors executed to the plaintiff a deed of sale; but, in the absence of any s...
Tag this Judgment!Walji Karimji Vs. Jaganath Premji Et Ux
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-22-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom84
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaintiff, as a purchaser at an auction sale, made under a power of sale contained in a deed of mortgage executed by the male defendant Jaganath Premji, of certain land and buildings thereon, brought this suit to obtain (recover) possession of the same premises from the defendants. The Court of Small Causes has made a decree for the plaintiff, subject to the question submitted to this Court: whether the fact that the value of the premises exceeds Rs. 500, but does not exceed Rs. 1,000, deprives the Court of Small Causes of jurisdiction.2. That Court has called our attention to Sreemutty Shibosoondary Dossee v. Taracknath Pandit, (2 Ind. Jur., 145), note decided in the Court of Small Causes at Calcutta, in which case that Court held that its jurisdiction to entertain suits to recover immoveable property, not exceeding Rs. 500 in value, which subsisted under Act IX of 1850, Section 25, was not extended by Act XXVI of 1864, Section 2, to immoveable property no...
Tag this Judgment!Mora BIn Patlaji Vs. Gopal BIn Satu
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom120
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaint, which was presented upon the 25th August 1871, states that the cause of action accrued on the 30th day of June 1865. The defendant (who was the special appellant) contends that this is merely a suit for a declaratory decree, and, as such, falls within Clause 16, Section 1 of Act XIV of 1859, and, not having been brought within six years of the alleged accruer of the cause of action, is barred, inasmuch as, he argues, that six and not twelve years is the period of limitation for declaratory suits, even though they should relate to immoveable property. The members of the Division Court differed in opinion--Mr. Justice MELVILL holding that the plea of limitation was in time, and that Clause 16, Section 1 of Act XIV of 1859, and not Clause 12, Section 1, was the enactment applicable to such a declaratory suit as the present suit, which, therefore, was barred. Mr. Justice Nanabhai Haridas held that the plea of limitation was too late, and, further, that,...
Tag this Judgment!Bhala Nahana Vs. Parbhu Hari
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom67
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. It is not a necessary consequence of the circumstance that the spiritual motive for adoption, which exists among the Hindus of castes higher or other than the Talabda Koli caste, has no influence upon it, that its members may not lawfully adopt. The celebrity or perpetuation of the name and family of the adopter is recognized as a motive for adoption. Datt. Mim., Section 1., pl. 9.; Datt. Chand., Section 1., pl. 3. For instance, adoption, though not frequent in the Jaina community of Hindus, is practised and recognized, notwithstanding that they disbelieve in the efficacy of and discard the sraddha or paksha ceremonies; their solo motive for adoption being the perpetuation of the name and family of the adopter: Bhagvandas Tejmall v. Rajmal 10 Bom. H.C. Rep. 241;2. In the Subordinate Judge's Court the reasons for adoption in the Talabda Koli caste are found to be temporal, viz., the rendition by the adopted sons of domestic services, the commemoration, by those ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›