Mumbai Court August 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.
Chandmal and ors. Vs. Bachraj Alias Motiram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-07-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom474
West, J.1. We think that the case must be disposed of on the assumption of a tenancy having existed; and on the single consideration that the alleged notice to the tenant by Khubchand is not so proved to have come to the tenant's knowledge--brought so near to his positive personal cognizance--as the law requires to give it effect in determining a tenancy. What appears is that Khubchand gave notice to vacate to the defendant, along with Several other tenants, by means of an advertisement in the Dnyan Prakash newspaper. It does not appear that the same from of notice was handed to the defendant, or any member of his household, or that even a copy of the newspaper was sent to the defendant by hand or by post. The defendant's non-recollection of whether any notice reached him, or not, cannot supply the defect of positive testimony bringing the notice home to him. He is certain that Khubchand never personally asked him to vacate, and Khubchand does not say that he did make any such request ...
Gan Savant Bal Savant and anr. Vs. Narayan Dhond Savant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom467
Kemball, J.1. It appears that a suit was brought, and decree obtained, by the manager of a joint family in 1858 for redemption of certain property, but the decree was not executed. Subsequently the present suit for redemption in respect of the very came property was brought by another member of the joint family who was a minor when the former suit was instituted, and the question is, this second suit maintainable? The District Judge found, as a fact, that the present plaintiff was duly represented in the former suit, but was of opinion that a new cause of action had arisen, as the decree in the former suit did not direct foreclosure; and the decree never having been executed, the status of mortgagor and mortgagee continued between the parties.2. But I think the District Judge was wrong: see Full-Bench ruling--Sheikh Golam, Hossein v. Alla Rukhee Beebee N.W.P.H.C. R. 1871 62 referred to in Anrudh Sing v. Sheo Prasad I.L.R. 4 All. 481. By reason of the default in payment of the money dec...
In Re: Hansraj Malji and Narandas Dayal; Insolvents; Dewar and Co.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-01-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR7Bom411
Scott, J.1. Upon the evidence it appears sufficiently established that Narandas was, at the date of filing his joint petition, a minor under the age of eighteen years; that he had brought some capital into the firm, but had taken no active part in the business, and that he had made no express representation to any constituent or creditor of the firm that he was of full age. Such being the facts proved, the law laid down in Ex p. Jones (1) applies. That case is based on the general rule that infants being incapable of contracting, except for necessaries, cannot be adjudged insolvent, and the only exception allowed to the rule is where there has been an express representation amounting to fraud. Narandas is not liable to be made a bankrupt, though, no doubt, he has traded, and even brought some moneys of his own into the trade. From the mere fact of his trading he cannot be taken to have held himself out as a person of full age nor, because fie did not give out to the world what his real...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›