Mumbai Court January 1878 Judgments
Munsuk Mosundas Vs. Shivram Devising
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-31-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom532
1. Section 5 of Act X of 1877 enacts that the sections of that Act, which are mentioned in the second schedule, shall be applicable to Courts of Small Causes in the Mofussal. We do not find in that schedule any of the sections from Section 223 to Section 229 inclusive, nor any portion of Section 648, except that which relates to the subject of arrests, and we, consequently, have come to the conclusion that the Legislature has deliberately resolved that Small Cause Courts in the Mofussal shall not be at liberty to execute decrees against property beyond their local jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, we must answer the question submitted to us in the negative, and we decline to make any such representation to Government, as suggested by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court of Ahmedabad....
Tag this Judgment!Damodar Madhowji and ors. Vs. Purmanandas Jeewandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-29-1878
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom155
Scott, J.1. These two suits, arising out of the same causes of action and being between the same parties in the same interests, were tried together. In the first suit (No. 237 of 1877) the plaintiffs are the executors appointed by the will of Ramkuverbai alias Samkuverbai, widow of Ranchordas Canjee, and they claim from the defendant, Purmanandas, nephew and residuary legatee of the said Ranchordas Canjee, the sum of five thousand nine hundred and fifty rupees with interest. This sum of 5,950 rupees is due, they contend, to the deceased widow under the will of her husband, Ranchordas, who made provision for her by directing the payment of certain annual sums amounting to Rs. 950, and by also directing that Rs. 5,000 should be paid to her in case she performed a certain pilgrimage.2. Purmanandas, as plaintiff of the second suit (No. 556 of 1877) against the said executors, prayed:(1) That the will of Ranchordas be declared void; but this prayer was withdrawn at the hearing, in consequen...
Tag this Judgment!Vasudevanant Vs. Ramkrishna and Shivram Narayan
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-23-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom529
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We think that the decision of the Inam Commissioner of the 30th January 1865 was only intended to regulate the duration of the exemption of the village of Koliwadi from assessment, and not to regulate the enjoyment of it as between the heirs of the original grantee. There was not, in fact, any question, then, before the Inam Commissioner as to the right of Vasudev as adopted son of Anandrav. We are further of opinion that the provision in Bombay Act II of 1863, Section 6, Clause 2, as to non-recognition of adoption, by any Civil Court, etc., relates only to the question of the assess-ability of lands when raised between Government and a claimant of exemption. Here Government has recognized Vasudev as the adopted son of Anandrav, has. permitted him to hold the lands free from assessment, and admits his title. It is not open to the plaintiffs to rely upon a provision of which Government only is entitled to take advantage. As, for the foregoing reasons, we think t...
Tag this Judgment!Bhavan Mulji Vs. Kavasji Jehangir Jasawala and Perosha Merwanji Liquid ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-18-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom542
Green, J.1. The action in this case was for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 1,000, being the amount of the first distribution of assets in the abovementioned company (in liquidation), at the rate of Rs. 200 per share, in respect of five shares in the company held by the plaintiff.2. The facts appearing from the case, stated by the Judge, were as follows:3. That five shares in the company were allotted to one Nagardas Parmanandas before the 30th November 1874; that no share certificates were ever issued; that the only document which Nagardas ever obtained, as evidencing his right to the five shares, was a receipt for Rs. 1,250, the first call on five shares in the company, which receipt was signed by the then secretaries and treasurer of the company. The receipt was in the following form: Received from Nagardas Parmanandas, Esq., the sum of rupees one thousand two hundred and fifty, being the amount of first call on five shares of Amraoti Cotton Mills, as per allotment No. 132.Bombay, 27...
Tag this Judgment!Chinto Abaji Kulkarni Vs. Lakshmibai Kom Sakharam Antaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-10-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom375
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. It does not appear that the right of the plaintiff to a Share in the vatan property has ever been disputed by the defendant, or that any possession which she has had of it, or of a share in it, has been disturbed.. So that, in deciding this case, our decree cannot affect her interest in, or possession of, that property in any respect. The Subordinate Judge has declared her to be the representative vatandar of her husband's branch of the family. The High Court, even before the passing of Bombay Act III of 1874, never went so far as to declare any member of a family or branch of a family of vatandars to be the representative of that family or branch. It expressly refused so to do: Abaji v. Niloji 2 Bom. H.C. Rep. 342. It has declared a person to be eligible to officiate--Ningangavda v. Satyangavda 11 Bom. H.C. Rep. 232--but not that he was so in preference to any other member of the vatani family. Since Bombay Act III of 1874 became law, none but representative v...
Tag this Judgment!Sangapa BIn Baslingapa Vs. Gangapa BIn Niranjapa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jan-09-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom476
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaintiff, a Lingayet, by this suit claims as against the three defendants a declaration of his right (which he alleges to be hereditary) to take a cupola to a Lingayet temple and to place it upon the car of the idol, and to take a nandicola (bamboo) with tom-toms from his house to the temple, and to offer the first cocoanut to the idol at the annual festival held in honour of Gangapaya Maha Purush, a Lingayet saint, A singular circumstance is, that the second defendant is a Mussulman, and at the bar has been stated to be a species of trustee of the temple conjointly with the first defendant (who is the Lingayet pujari of the idol), and to be associated in the trust, because the temple has been built partly on the grave of Mussulman pir or saint. The third defendant alleges the car to have been built at his expense (a disputed fact, not decided in the Courts below), and that he has the right to place the cupola upon it and to offer the first cocoanut to the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›