Mumbai Court May 1878 Judgments
Savitribai Widow of Dhakji Balcrustna Vs. Luximibai Widow of Ganoba An ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-01-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom573
Michael Westropp, C.J.,1. Ganoba Ananta, the husband of the first defendant Luximibai, died, leaving, by her, two sons, Sadasiv (the second defendant) and Balcrustna, and one daughter Anantibai. Balcrustna was transported to the Straits Settlements, whence he returned in 1850 or 1851, and died in 1867 or 1868, leaving one son Dhakji, of whom counsel stated on the argument of this appeal that he (Dhakji) was born in 1839, before the partition which we shall presently mention, but of this there is no proof. It was not asserted that he was married until after the partition. He has died, leaving, surviving him, his widow, the plaintiff Savitribai, and an infant daughter who died during the pendency of this suit and before the present appeal. In 1852 Sadasiv Ganoba instituted a suit against his cousins, the sons of Shivshanker, brother of Ganoba Ananta, and his (Sadasiv's) brother, Balcrustna, and a Parsi mortgagee, at the Equity Side of the late Supreme Court, in which suit a decree for sa...
Tag this Judgment!Apaji Chintaman Devdhar Vs. Gangabai Kom Daji Chintaman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-01-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom632
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The question whether a Court of Small Causes could have entertained this suit, referred to a Full Bench by the Division Court having been by the Full Bench decided in the negative, it now remains for the present Division Court--Mr. Justice Nanabhai Haridas, who was one of the referring Judges, being no longer on the Bench--to dispose of the suit on the merits. It is one by a widow against the brother of her late husband for a pecuniary allowance as maintenance and the expenses of a pilgrimage to Benares. The defendant alleged that he had not any ancestral property, and that he did not derive any property from his deceased brother, the husband of the plaintiff, and the Courts below have found this allegation to be true. The Subordinate Judge decreed against the plaintiff, but his decision was reversed by the Assistant Judge, who relied upon Timmappu v. Parmehrimma 5 Bom. H.C. Rep. 130. However, in the case of Savitribas v. Luxumibai I.L.R. 2 Bom. 573 decided on ...
Tag this Judgment!Sidlingapa Son of Basapa Vs. Sidava Kom Sidlingapa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-01-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR2Bom624
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The plaintiff, alleging herself to be the wife of the defendant, by her plaint states that, three days previously to the filing of it he turned her out of doors with her children (of whom there are said to be two), and refused to support her. She, accordingly, sues him for maintenance at the rate of Rs. 4 per mensem.2. The defendant, in reply, denied that, at the time mentioned by the plaintiff, he turned her out of his house, and he alleged that, about fourteen years previously, she had eloped with another man, and that her suit is barred by the law of limitation. The defendant further asserted that, about twelve years before he filed his written statement, he had divorced the plaintiff, on the occasion of a dispute between them, before the magisterial authorities, and that she had given birth to two illegitimate children.3. The Subordinate Judge of Haveri made a decree, with costs for the defendant, on the ground that, about ten or twelve years previously to ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›