Mumbai Court July 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.
Shri Shailapa Hadlapa Vs. Balapa Lokanna and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom446
West, J.1. When the bond in this case fell due, the creditor might either have sued for the whole sum due within six years (it being a registered instrument), or, as the bond provided that, in, default of payment, the principal sum should be added to an existing mortgage-debt, the creditor might prefer that it should be thus secured, and forego his right to immediate repayment. All that could be said was that he could not take advantage of both alternatives. Now, when he sued for three-years' arrears of interest, as provided in the second branch of the engagement, without suing for the principal then long overdue, he conclusively elected to take advantage of the second alternative engagement, and he could then no longer sue,--i., e., he, had no longer a cause of action--on the first alternative. He had made a conclusive election of one out of the two contracts embraced in the bond. He got a decree, which implied that the obligation was reduced to this, that the interest should be paid ...
Seth Mulchand Badharsha Deceased His Heirs Ghelabhai Mulchand and anr. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-10-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom491
West, J.1. The testator in this case, having no sons, bequeathed his shop to his widows, one of whom survives. As there was no co-owner with him of the property, he could have given it, and might, therefore, bequeath it to a stranger with as full ownership as he had himself, and with the usual incidents of ownership, amongst which is the power of alienation. In the case of the widow, however, Mr. Telang refers to chapter IV, Section 10, para. 9, of the Vayav. Mayukha, as preventing the alienation of immoveable property given by a husband to His wife, and as equally preventing the widow's alienation of property bequeathed by her husband. That bequests stand substantially on the same footing as gifts was finally ruled by the Tagore Case; but the case referred to by Mr. Branson shows that the Hindu law has been construed as allowing a gift of full ownership with power of disposal to a wife and in the form of bequest to a widow as well as to a stranger. The Smriti passage in the Mayukha (t...
Shiva Nathaji Vs. Joma Kashinath and Two ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-06-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom341
West, J.1. In the present case the question referred for the decision of the Full Bench is as follows:2. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or otherwise on behalf of persons who feel themselves aggrieved by orders passed by Courts below in cases, such as the present, in which it appears the law has specifically prescribed another remedy, by suit or otherwise? E.g.--Parties considering themselves aggrieved by orders passed under Sections 280, 281, or 282 may, under Section 283, institute a suit. Instead of filing, a suit, are they entitled to ask the High Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction and set aside the order? The decisions on the point conflict, and we have, therefore, made the reference.3. The matter is one of practical importance, as is shown by the frequency with which it comes up in the Court. That it is one of some difficulty is proved by the differences of opinion which have led...
Balvantrav Oze Vs. Ganpatrav Jadhav and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom336
West, J.1. In this case we think that the District Court has misconstrued the document No. 101. Properly interpreted that document does not imply that defendant No. 1 was in possession of the property mortgaged by him to the plaintiff, but that he was managing it for the plaintiff, or rather helping the plaintiff to manage it, as he was bound to do by the terms of the mortgage. This implies a possession by the mortgagee. The difference is important in this respect, that a mortgagor left in possession, though he would not as against his mortgagee have any right to deteriorate the property below the value which it had when mortgaged, might dispose of the annual felling or cutting in any way which would be consistent with good management (Fisher on Mortgages, 572). It is not contended in this case that the sale to defendant No. 2 was destructive of the estate so as to impair the security. As, then, the mortgagor in possession might properly sell, so a purchaser might properly buy, and sho...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›