Mumbai Court July 1882 Judgments
Musa Miya Saheb a Minor Vs. Sayad Gulam HuseIn Mahamad
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-26-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom100
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. We think that no second appeal lies in this case. Act X of 1876, Section 15, removes suits, in which the Collector is a party, from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, but the nature of the suit, by which must be understood the jural relations between the parties, remains unaltered, and as the present suit is one of the nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court, no second appeal lies, as provided by Section 586, Act X of 1877. Appeal dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Faki Ismail Vs. Umabai Bivalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom425
West, J.1. There are certain productions of the soil of an estate which, by the Roman law, were regarded as of the character oil fruits or profits, though not falling within the ordinary comprehension of these words. Such were the minerals and stones obtained from pita and quarries--see Digest, Lib. VII, 13, De Verb Sign., 77. Under the modern law, however, Lord Cairns, in a Scotch case, said: 'What we call a mineral lease is really, when properly considered, a sale, out and out, of a portion of the land'--Gowan v. Christie L.R. 2 II.L. 284. See also Wilkinson v. Haygarth 16 L.J.Q.B. 103. Similarly, we think that the removal of earth from a rice field is distinctly a taking of a portion of the substance, not merely of a profit, of the land. In the present case, the owner of the fields was undoubtedly in possession until the servants of Umabai came to take away earth for her embankment. He prevented this, and thus retained possession of the whole property, of part of which Umabai's peop...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›