Mumbai Court September 1877 Judgments
Nana BIn Lakshman and ors. Vs. Anant Babaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom353
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. On behalf of the defendants it is contended that as the mortgage (Exhibit 3) of the 1st November 1867 was for a sum of Rs. 5, with interest at Rs. 1-9 per cent, per mensem--i.e., upwards of 18 per cent, per annum--and was not redeemable for five years from its date, the right, title, and interest thereby created exceeded Rs. 100 in value, and, therefore, according to Act XX of 1866, Section 17, Clause 2, required registration, not having been registered, could not lawfully be received in evidence, or acted on by the lower Court (section 49). In support of this contention, Darshan Singh v. Hanwanta I.L.B. 1 All. 274 was cited. The Court, in its judgment in that case, stated that the instrument, the necessity for registration of which was there in question, 'secured the repayment of Rs. 99 plus Rs. 6, the interest for three months.' Hence we infer that the whole consideration, shown by the instrument to have been received by the mortgagor, was Rs. 99. The stateme...
Tag this Judgment!Jagjivan Nanabhai Vs. Shridhar Balkrishna Nagarkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-12-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom252
Melvill, J.1. In Keshavrav v. Bhavanji 8 Bom. H.C. Rep. 142 I have expressed a doubt whether, in the case of an ordinary mortgage in the mofussal, the mortgagee can exercise a power of sale given by the instrument of mortgage. In the present case, although the mortgaged property is situated a few miles out of Bombay, the parties are residents of Bombay, conducting their transactions through Bombay solicitors, and the instrument of mortgage is a regular and formal deed in English form. I think that in this case the parties must be held to have intended to contract with reference to English law, and to be entitled to enforce their rights according to that law: Bholanath Coondoo Chowdry v. Unodapersad Ray 1 Bou. 97 see 101.2. The deed of mortgage between the parties contains a power of sale to be exercised after a previous notice to the mortgagor. Such a notice was given to the plaintiff on the 21st February 1877, and thereupon, on the 17th March, the plaintiff filed this suit to redeem, ...
Tag this Judgment!Chatur Jagsi Vs. Tulsi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1877
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom230
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The question raised in this case by the learned First Class Subordinate Judge has already been decided on the 20th of March 1877 in this Court by Melvill and Kemball, JJ., in Raghoji v. Abdul Karim I.L.R. 1 Bom. 590. A copy of the judgment in that case is herewith forwarded to the First Class Subordinate Judge. In addition to the cases mentioned in it, the observations of the Court in Tilakchand Hindumal v. Jitamal Sudaram 10 Bom. H.C. Rep. 206; as to the reason for upholding a promise to pay a debt barred by the Law of Limitation, may be referred to.2. Having come to the opinion that the plaintiff is not prevented by the Indian Limitation Act, 1871, Section 20(a), from maintaining a substantive action on the new notes (exhibits 3 and 4), his right to bring such an action being recognized by Section 25, Clause 3, of the Indian Contract Act, which is the later enactment, we must reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge, and remand this cause for a new trial o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›