Mumbai Court April 1883 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Mahadev Narsinh Vs. Ragho Keshav and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-19-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom292
Charles Sargent, Kt., C.J.1. We think, following Chaudhri Ranjit Singh v. Jafar Ali Khan I.L.R. 3 All. 18 that the right of appeal given by Sections 588 and 589 of the Code of Civil Procedure from an order of remand contemplated by Section 562 is not taken away by Section 586.2. The Court then heard the appeal on the merits, and confirmed the remand order of the District Judge, with costs....
Bhau Balaji Vs. Hari Nilkanthrav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom377
Kemball, J.1. It is objected, and we think the objection is well founded, that this claim to possession is res judicata. It has 'been 'held by this Court under the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, as it stood before it was altered by Act XXII of 1882, in the case of Hari v. Lakhsman I.L.R. 5 Bom. 614 that an agriculturist mortgagor had no right to sue his mortgagee in a mere action for an account: in other words, that he must, when asking for an account, add a prayer for redemption; and it follows, therefore, that where there has been, a suit for an account, a subsequent suit, for recovery of possession on payment of the money declared due, is barred, under either section. 13 or Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code. We have, consequently, no alternative but to reverse the decrees of the Courts below, and reject the claim, with costs. What the effect of the decree of the 14th January 1881, may be, it is not for us to decide now; but, supposing that the decree-holder is not able to ...
Janardan Vithal Vs. Anant Mahadev and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-17-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom373
Pinhey, J.1. We think the Subordinate Judge was quite wrong it dismissing this suit for the reasons given by him. He dismissed the suit for two reasons, viz., first, because the second defendant Ramabai was not made a party to the suit until more than sixty days after the death of her husband. Sitaram, as required by Article 171 B of Schedule II of Act XV of 1877; and, secondly, because the sixth defendant Balkrishna, who is a brother of the plaintiff, possesses property which is liable to partition, and which is not included in the plaint.2. Now, as to the first of these reasons, we think the limitation law has no bearing on the case. Article 171B applies to applications made under Section 368 of the Code of Civil Procedure,--that is, after a suit has been instituted. A suit is instituted by presenting a plaint (Section 48). An application to sue in forma pauperis is deemed the plaint in the suit after the Court has granted the application under Section 410. What happened is this case...
Dalsukhram Mahasukhram and ors. Vs. Lallubhai Motichand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-11-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom282
Kemball, J.1. The only objection taken in argument by the appellants against the decision of the District Judge is, that the sale of the house in the occupation of Bat Jadav was void by reason Saheb Lallubhai P. Parakh, Subordinate Judge of Ahmedabad.2. The plaintiff originally brought this suit against the first defendant, Dalsukhram Mahasukhram, to recover possession of two houses situated in the city of Ahmedabad. He alleged that he purchased these houses from the defendant under a registered deed of sale, dated 13th of November, 1873, for Rs. 900, and let them to him at an annual rental of Rs. 46 under an agreement of 3rd September, 1877. The defendant Dalsukhram admitted the execution of the deed of sale, but contended that it had been obtained fraudulently and without consideration, in settlement of certain time-bargain transactions between the plaintiff and Dalsukhram's brother, and that one of the houses was the self-acquired property of his late father, and by him devised to h...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›