Mumbai Court December 1882 Judgments
Bhogilal Vs. Popatbhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom125
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. As the plaintiff has sought the relief contemplated by Section 265 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872) by suit, he must pay the ad-valorem, court fees stamp required by a suit for account's under Section 7, el. iv (f) of Act VII of 1870....
Tag this Judgment!Vasudev Bhat Vs. Narayan Daji Damle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom131
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The plaintiff seeks to recover lands as given to him by one Sadashiv Hari Damle. The Acting Assistant Judge has found that the deed of gift was genuine, and that the donor had authority to pass the deed to the exclusion of the defendants, but that possession was only given under the deed of the thikans mentioned in the mamlatdar's summary decision, (exhibit 4). The plaintiff contends that the deed of gift having been registered, his title was complete without possession. It was admitted that the general rule of Hindu law was as laid down in Hargovan v. Narian 4 Bom. H.C. Rep. 38 but it was said, that the object of the rule was to give publicity, and that registration ought to be deemed sufficient to effect that object. Mr. Justice West in his exhaustive, judgment in Lalubhai v. Bai Amrit I.L.R. 2 Bom. 333 expressed an opinion to that effect, but it was not necessary to the decision of the case before him. He says: 'The object of the various ceremonies presc...
Tag this Judgment!Kalu Vs. Kashibai Alias Lakshmibai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom127
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The District Judge has found that there was no ancestral property in the family of the respondent's deceased husband, and that the property which his father Kalu now possesses is exclusively his own self-acquired property. The question for our consideration is Whether, under these circumstances, the widow and her infant sons, who are admittedly in indigent circumstances, have any legal claim to be supported by the appellant.2. The legal obligation of a father-in-law to support the widow of his deceased son came before a Divisional Bench of this High Court, consisting of Mr. Justice West and Mr. Justice Nanabhai, in Udaram Sitaram v. Sonkabai 10 Bom. H.C. Hep. 483. The facts of the case are unfortunately not stated by the Reporter as fully as might be wished, nor do the judgments delivered by the Court enable us to ascertain them with certainty. Mr. Justice West having stated the question to be whether there was a legal obligation on the part of the father-i...
Tag this Judgment!Janoji Vs. Janoji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-19-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom185
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. This suit was brought by an agriculturist, under the Deccan Agriculturists' Relief Act, to redeem his lands which had been mortgaged to the defendant. The defendant contended that, by the terms of his mortgage-bond, ho was not bound to account, and that Section 12 of the Act was not applicable. The Subordinate Judge overruled the objection, and proceeded to take the account under the above section, which resulted in a balance of Rs. 107-8-6 being found in favour of plaintiff, and passed a decree for the restoration of the land to the plaintiff and the payment of Rs. 107-8-6, minus the defendant's costs. The District Judge confirmed this decree. The only point which was seriously argued before us on second appeal was that a decree for the balance of Rs. 107-8-6 ought not to have been passed in favour of plaintiff, the account having been taken under the Act. The general practice, when the mortgagee has been found on taking the accounts to have been overpaid,...
Tag this Judgment!Ramapa Vs. Umanna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-11-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom123
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. The, plaintiff seeks to recover possession of the half of two survey Nos. 796 and 787 in Honvad village in the Bijapur Taluka and for Rs. 200 mesne profits. It is not disputed that the land, No. 796, was mortgaged in 1874 with possession to the plaintiff and defendant jointly to secure Rs. 500, with an agreement that if the mortgage was not paid off in five years the survey Nos. 796 and 787 should be entered in the khata of plaintiff and defendant jointly.2. Defendant's case is that plaintiff was paid Rs. 250 by the mortgagor as his share of the mortgage money before the expiration of the five years, and that, on payment of Rs. 900 by him to mortgagor, the lands were entered in his name, the mortgager giving up all interest in the land. A receipt by plaintiff for Rs. 250 on account of the mortgage debt was tendered in evidence by defendant, and objected to on the ground of its not being registered. The Assistant Judge admitted it on the authority of Shidlin...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›