Mumbai Court August 1877 Judgments
Manohar Ganesh Vs. Bawa Ramcharandas and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom219
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. It appears that in the lower Court the plaintiffs pleader contended that this suit falls, in respect of the Court fees properly payable upon the plaint, within Article 17, cl. iii of Schedule II of the Court; Fees' Act (VII of 1870), as being a suit 'to obtain a declaratory decree where no consequential relief is prayed,' and, therefore, only requiring a stamp of 10 rupees. Such a stamp is more than sufficient for a suit of the value of, Rs. 100. The First Class Subordinate Judge, however, decided that the plaint did not come within that article, but rather within Section 7, Clause 4, pl. (c), of the same Act, inasmuch as he was of opinion that the plaintiff not only sought a declaration of his right to take an account of the property and to inspect the Shavaks' (defendants') books, but also consequential relief, namely, production of the property dedicated to the idol, and that an account should be actually furnished to him from the books kept in the bhandar (...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Sakharam Vagh Vs. Sakharam Gopal Vagh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-21-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom346
Melvill, J.1. It appears from Exhibit No. 22 that a saranjam was granted by the Peishwa to the defendant's) father in 1801. It was resumed by the British Government in 1818, and, in lieu of it, a pension of Rs. 1,200 was granted to the defendant, half of which was to be continued to the second generation.2. The plaintiff is an adult legitimate son of the defendant, and it is found by the Courts below that he has been turned out of his father's house in consequence of family quarrels arising out of his father's second marriage. He now sues the defendant for Rs. 63, being the amount of necessary expenses incurred by him during the six months preceding the suit. He has received a certificate from the Collector, under Section 6 of Act XXIII of 1871, authorizing the civil Courts to entertain the suit. The parties are Brahmins, and the plaintiff alleges in his plaint, and the allegation is not contested in the defendant's written statement, that his father has not given him any education, or...
Tag this Judgment!Lalubhai Surchand Vs. Bai Amrit and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-17-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom299
West, J.1. The facts found in this case are that Lalubhai Surchand agreed with Bai Amrit for the purchase from her of a house. He paid a portion of the purchase-money, rather less than one-fourth, and a sale-deed in his favour was executed by Amrit and her husband Ranchod Manor. This was dated 2nd July 1868; but, pending payment in full, possession was not delivered to Lalubhai, and on the same date a second conveyance for valuable consideration was made by Amrit and Ranchod to Tarachand, who received immediate possession. Amrit could then no longer give effect to her contract with Lalubhai, and she declined to receive the remainder of his purchase-money when he tendered it. Both deeds have been registered, and Lalubhai, charging Bai Amrit and Tarachand with fraud, seeks now to enforce the completion of the transaction with him by a delivery into his possession of the house that he purchased. The accusation of fraud is retorted by the defendants; but, on the facts found by the lower Co...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Madhavrao Naik and anr. Vs. the Collector of Thana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-14-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom145
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. This Court is of opinion that any right of appeal, to which the plaintiff might have been entitled under Sections 31 and 36 (combined) of the Civil Procedure Code (Act VIII of 1859), against the order of the District Judge, which fixed the amount of the Court fee chargeable on the plaint, has been taken away by Section 12, clause I of the Court Fees Act VII of 1870. Under clause II of the same section, a Court of Appeal, before which a suit may come, is, if the question of amount of fee have been wrongly decided in the Court below to the detriment of the revenue, empowered to require payment of the additional fee, but has no authority to reduce the fee, if wrongly decided to the detriment of the subject and advantage of the revenue. Section 36 of the Civil Procedure Code is not mentioned in the second section or third schedule of the Court Fees Act amongst the enactments wholly or partially repealed by that Act; but Section 2 and Schedule III are not exhaustive...
Tag this Judgment!Framji Besanji Dustur Vs. Jaitha Devji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom258
Green, J.1. This matter arises on a summons, dated 19th July 1877, issued at the instance of one Jaitba Devji, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why a certain sale by the Sheriff of Bombay on 13th June last to the said Jaitha Devji as purchaser of three shares Nos. 2022, 2095, and 3005, of the New Colaba Company, Limited, should not be set aside and cancelled, and why the sum of Rs. 2,300, paid by the said purchaser to the Sheriff on the said 13th June as purchase-money of the said shares, should not be returned to the purchaser, and why the plaintiff should not pay the said purchaser the costs incurred by him concerning the said sale together with the costs of the application. In the meantime, the Sheriff was directed to retain the said sum of Rs. 2,300 till further order. Though the Sheriff is not a party to that summons, yet the Deputy Sheriff informed me he was aware of the same, but had no intention of showing any cause, and submitted to any order the Court might make.2. On 1...
Tag this Judgment!Jamnadas and ors. Vs. Lalitaram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom294
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The darkhast of the 24th July 1874 prays execution of the decree of the 10th December 1863 against certain specified moveable property of the defendants, on which decree the plaintiffs allege that Rs. 21,346-5-5 are still due. It had directed the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the sum of Rs. 43,667-9-10, and also declared the plaintiffs entitled to a mortgage (dated 25th January 1856) upon a monthly permanent pension of Rs. 300 payable quarterly to the defendants. On the 16th April 1869, the plaintiffs, by a darkhast alleging that Rs. 30,789-3-5 were then due on the decree of 1863, prayed attachment of the pension; and the Court of the Subordinate Judge ordered the same accordingly. Subsequently, the Pensions Act XXIII of 1871 was passed, and the Deputy Collector of the Zillah of Surat, by letter of 13th May 1872 to the Court, in consequence of the passing of that Act, declined to continue to the plaintiffs the payment of the pension, which, up to that dat...
Tag this Judgment!imperatrix Vs. Baban Khan Valad Mhaskoji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom142
West, J.1. We think that the first head of the charge in this case did not give to the accused the information which the law intended him to have of the particular offence, expressed circumstantially, to which he was called upon to answer. The descriptions of crimes in the Penal Code must of necessity be expressed in abstract terms, but the very object of a trial is to determine whether particular acts or omissions on the part of an accused fall or do not fall within the rule thus abstractedly stated. Conformably to this principle, all the models of charges in Schedule III to the Code of Procedure contain or imply the setting forth with reasonable particularity of the matters alleged to constitute the offence. Here the accused was charged that he being a public servant * * * knowingly disobeyed the direction of the law as to the way in which he had to conduct himself as such public servant with respect to the property found in an investigation held in a case of theft, etc.;' what the d...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›