Mumbai Court November 1882 Judgments
MaidIn Saiba Vs. Nagapa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom96
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The suit is to recover possession of certain lands to which the defendant pleads that they were included in a mulgeny lease granted to him in 1849 and also that the plaintiff's claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations. The District Court has found first, that the lands were not included in the lease; secondly, that the defendant has been in actual possession of the lands ever since 1849, claiming throughout to hold them as such mulgeny tenant. The Full Bench ruling in Dinomoney Dahea v. Doorgapersad Mozoomdar 12 B L.R. 285 is conclusive as to the right of the defendant to set up the defence of tenancy and at the same time to rely on the Statute of Limitations. But it was said that inasmuch as the defendant has always claimed the land as a permanent tenant, there has been no adverse possession as contemplated by Article 144 of the Limitation Act XV of 1877. In the case reported at the foot of 12 Bengal Law Reports, 282, the Court held that such possessi...
Tag this Judgment!Valu Widow of Aba Vs. Ganga Widow of Bablingaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom84
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff, Ganga, claiming to be the widow of one Bablingaya, seeks to recover possession from the defendant, Valu, the daughter-in-law of the said Bablingaya, (her husband having pre-deceased his father), of five fields and a house. The plaintiff's case is that all the property was given to her by Bablingaya by will. The defendant disputed the plaintiff's claim to be the widow of Bablingaya and also the validity of the will. Both of these issues were found by the Courts be low in favour of the plaintiff. As to the house, it was also found that it had passed under Bablingaya's will to Bhagu, another of his wives who survived him, and that as Bhagu, who is now dead, left a daughter now living, the plaintiff could have no claim to it, at any rate at present. As to the lands, the District Judge found that they were ancestral, but refused to allow defendant's claim to maintenance out of them, on the ground that she was an unchaste widow.2. It h...
Tag this Judgment!Kisansing Jivansing Pardesi Vs. Moreshwar Vishnu Joshi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-27-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom91
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. This suit arises out of the following facts. Nan Ganaji and his nephew, Hashia Bhika, were the members of an undivided Hindu family in 1872, in which year Nan mortgaged the land in dispute (part of the family property) to one Jana Patil, who subsequently obtained a decree on 10th June, 1876, against Nan, directing the sale of the mortgaged property, which was accordingly sold by auction on 26th October, 1876, and purchased by the defendant. The plaintiff had previously (as alleged in the plaint) purchased the same property from Nan and Hashia by a registered deed dated the 30th June, 1876, and seeks by his plaint to recover possession of Hashia's half share of the land and mesne profits. The defendant pleaded that the mortgage was binding on Hashia, and that plaintiff's purchase was not bona fide, but made in collusion with Nan and Hashia in order to save the property; and, lastly, that plaintiff was estopped from disputing his title. The Subordinate Judge ...
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Janki
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom82
West, J.1. The effect of Sections 37 and 40 of the Stamp Act I of 1879 is that every one must be allowed an opportunity of paying the penalty before the Collector exercises his discretion under Section 69. In many cases there may be a reasonable question as to whether any penalty is payable or not, and the duty may be recovered by an order which would be lost by a prosecution. He ought, at any rate, to do what the law commands as his duty before exercising a mere discretion. It is not abetment of the execution of an unstamped instrument to receive it, any more than acceptance of stolen property is abetment of theft. The Court is of opinion that the decision of Mr. Ingle is right....
Tag this Judgment!Empress Vs. Arjun
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-02-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom184
Pinhey, J.1. We must reverse the conviction and sentence, and direct the trial of the accused for an offence punishable under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused did not merely falsely inform the chief constable that he had been fobbed, but he complained that Ganpat had robbed him....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›