Mumbai Court April 1878 Judgments
imperatrix Vs. Dongaji Andaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-29-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom564
Melvill, J.1. The proceedings in this case have been called for with the view of hearing an appeal preferred by the convict against the finding and sentence of the Sessions Court of Puna. In the meantime the convict has died in Jail.2. The sentence included a fine of one thousand rupees; and as, under Section 70 of the Penal Code, the estate of the deceased convict is still liable for the discharge of this fine, Mr. Vinayak Pandit asks that he may be heard against the conviction.3. Mr. Vinayak holds a power of attorney from the deceased convict, but this power was terminated by the death of the principal. He offers to produce a vakalatnama signed by the convict's representative; but it is clear that such representative has no locus standi in the case. In criminal cases, in which the sentence involves a fine or forfeiture of property, the representative of a deceased convict is, no doubt, interested in procuring a reversal of such sentence, and the Legislature might, if it had seen fit,...
Tag this Judgment!Kallapa BIn Girmallapa Vs. Venkatesh Vinayak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom676
Melvill, J.1. The defendant is in possession by virtue of an order under Section 269 of Act VIII of 1859, and the plaintiffs, therefore, could only succeed on the strength of their own title. They failed to make out the case stated in their plaint, viz., that the property in dispute came to them on partition. The District Judge, however, awarded them two-fifths of the property, on the ground that that constitutes the amount of their share in the family property. This decree cannot be maintained, as the plaintiffs, being two of several coparceners in undivided property, could not say that they were entitled to a specific share in any portion of that property. They might have sued for a general partition, or they might have asked for a decree declaring them entitled to joint possession with the defendant. The question is, whether in the present case we should give the appellant (the other plaintiff being dead) a decree for joint possession or leave him to his remedy by another suit? Havi...
Tag this Judgment!Anandrav Bapuji Vs. Shekh Baba and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-08-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom562
Melvill, J.1. This is an application to set aside an order of the District Court of Khandesh, by which the applicant, a judgment-creditor, is debarred from proceeding further against the property of the judgment-debtors.2. The applicant obtained a decree for Rs. 343-7-11 against Shekh Baba and others, under which certain immoveable property was put up for sale. One Baksu bid Rs. 350 for the property, and made the usual deposit of 25 per cent.; but on the fifth day he failed to make good the full amount of purchase-money, and the property was, consequently, again put up for sale, and purchased for Rs. 151. The judgment-creditor made an application to the Subordinate Judge, in which he stated that Baksu had been acting in collusion with the judgment-debtors, and without any real intention of purchasing; that he was a man without means, from whom nothing could be recovered; and he, therefore, asked that, instead of proceeding against Baksu, he might be allowed to attach other property of ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›