Mumbai Court July 1877 Judgments
Narayan Bharthi Vs. Laving Bharthi and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom140
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We concur with Mr. Walker in thinking that the principle decided in Rahi v. Govind I.L.R. 1 Bom. 97 is applicable to Gosavis. None of the passages from Steele or 1 West and Buhler, cited by the learned pleader of the plaintiff, show the contrary. The alleged custom amongst Gosavis to recognise a right of heirship in the son of Gosavi by a woman, who, in the lifetime of a previous husband, and without his consent, has married the Gosavi, would be a bad custom, and such as could not be treated by Courts of Justice as valid--Reg. v. Karson Goja 2 Bom. H.C. Rep. 117. The plaintiff, although the son of Lila Bharthi, being the offspring of an adulterous intercourse, cannot inherit from Lila Bharthi.2. The Assistant Judge has found that the plaintiff was not initiated as a 'chela, or disciple of Lila Bharthi: so on this ground also the plaintiff fails.3. We cannot--in this suit, which concerns only one portion of Lila Bharthi's property, and to which all persons in po...
Tag this Judgment!Raju Balu Vs. Krishnarav Ramchandra and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-30-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom273
Green, J.1. The plaintiff, in the character of assignee of certain immoveable property in Lohar Chal Street in Bombay, claims as against the defendants, the surviving heirs of one Sakharam Lakshmanji, who died on or about 27th October 1865, to recover damages for the breach of certain covenants for title contained in a certain instrument, purporting to be an indenture and under seal, dated 15th July 1865, and expressed to be made between the said Sakharam Lakshmanji, of the one part, and one Bhagvantrav Ramchandra, of the other part. The plaint alleges that, by this indenture of 15th July 1865, the said Sakharam Lakshmanji granted and conveyed to the said Bhagvantrav, his heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, the said premises in Lohar Chal Street. The plaint also alleges that at the time of the execution, by Sakharam Lakshmanji, of the indenture of 15th July 1865, the said premises were, and had been by a deed of gift bearing date 16th February 1847, and executed by the said ...
Tag this Judgment!The London Bombay and Mediterranean Bank Limited Vs. Bhanji Zutani and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-27-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom116
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The balance order of 26th January 1871 is a part of the record in Chancery, and, as such, 'imports incontrovertible verity.' In Weikersheim's Case L.R. 8 Ch., Ap. 831, the Master of the Rolls did nothing contrary to what he found on the record, for the words Weikersheim & Co., in that case, implied the existence of more than one member of the firm; whereas the words here, 'Devji Bhanji, cotton merchant,' placed on the list 'in his own right,' imply the existence of only one individual trader.2. What the plaintiffs ask us to do, is to allow them to give evidence for the purpose of showing that Devji Bhanji, of whom the balance order speaks as one man, in the singular, was, in fact, two men, in the plural, and thus virtually to amend the record of the Court of Chancery, which we cannot do.3. Nor, having sued the two defendants as partners on a joint liability, can the plaintiffs now be permitted, in the same suit, to proceed against one whom they allege to have s...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnadas Shankarlal and Vrijbhukhan Shankarlal Vs. Atmaram Harjivan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom133
West, J.1. The defendants Jamnadas and his brother being minded to rebuild their house, which lay contiguous to that of the plaintiff, commenced the requisite works in January or February 1872. The plaintiff Atmaram being apprehensive of injury to his house, through an obstruction to his upper windows, delivered to the defendants the notices, Nos. 34 and 35, dated, respectively, the 14th February and 9th March 1872. The defendants proceeded notwithstanding these notices to re-erect their house at a distance of one foot from Atmaram's, and carrying it up beyond its former height, they have so obstructed the plaintiff's windows that 'the two central rooms on the east side of his house, on the second floor, have been made unfit for occupation in the day time without artificial light.' The Assistant Judge holding that the plaintiff's property had thus been rendered 'in a material degree unsuitable for the purposes to which it is now applied,' followed Lord Westbury in Jackson v. The Duke o...
Tag this Judgment!imperatrix Vs. Pitamber Jina
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom61
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We are unanimously of opinion that the question which Mr. Inverarity proposed to put to the cart-driver Bala Ramji, in cross examination; was, under the circumstances, admissible. On hearing the arguments, we have come to the conclusion that Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872) does not preclude the counsel for one accused person on behalf of his client, asking questions to prove a confession made by another accused person. But under such circumstances it would be the duty of the Judge to instruct the jury that such confession is not to be received or treated as evidence against the person making it, but simply as evidence to be considered on behalf of the other. We also think that, unless the law were so, the accused person who was on his trial with the confessing party, might be considerably prejudiced by the exclusion of that evidence. The 25th section only provides that 'no confession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person...
Tag this Judgment!Moreshwar Bapuji Phatak Vs. Kushaba Shankroji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom248
West, J.1. The question in this case is whether Moreshwar, a purchaser, subsequent to the decree against Pitambardhari in regular appeal, can now, when Pitambardhari has died, maintain a special appeal filed by Pitambardhari for the reversal of the decree. It is contended by Mr. Shantaram that the purchaser under such circumstances is a representative of the deceased, entitled in that character to carry on the litigation through the several stages allowed by the Code of Civil Procedure, and he relies on the oases disposed of under Section 11 of Act XXIII of 1861 as furnishing an analogy by which the Court should be guided in disposing of Moreshwar's application in the present instance. Those cases, however, proceed always on the assumption that the points brought under adjudication in the judgment sought to be executed, have been finally disposed of. It is only questions arising in execution, and not thus previously disposed of, that have been allowed to be contested under Section 11 o...
Tag this Judgment!Subhabhat BIn Babanbhat Vs. Vasudevbhat BIn Subhabhat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom113
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. Although the deed of the 12th March 1832 (Exhibit 21) is on the face of it described as a mortgage, it is necessary to see whether its contents warrant that description. The grantee was already in possession under a mortgage of the 7th November 1820, and was under the new deed to receive the profits in liquidation of interest so far as they would go--and, as it appears to us, the grantor was not to be liable, to repay the principal money, or such balance of interest (if any) as might accrue upon it, unless he adopted a son. We do not perceive how, so long as he remained without making such an adoption, the grantee could have maintained any suit against him either for principal or interest--(vide Goodman v. Grierson, 2 B., and B. 274, 279, and per Cottenham L.C. in Williams v. Owen, 5 My. and Cr. 303, 308). In Howard v. Harris 1 Vern. 190 there was a covenant by the mortgagor to pay, upon which he might be sued by the mortgagee--a circumstance which distinguishe...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›