Mumbai Court October 1884 Judgments
Queen-empeess Vs. Tribhovan Manekchand and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-10-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom131
West, J.1. 'Confession' in Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act I of 1872 means, as in Section 24. a confession made by an accused person,' which it is proposed to prove against him to establish an offence. For such a purpose a confession might be inadmissible' which yet for other purposes would be admissible as an admission under Section 18 against the person who made it (section 21.) in his character of one setting up an interest in property, the object of litigation or judicial enquiry and disposal.2. Where there has been a trial and an order by the trying Court under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1882) that concludes the immediate right to possession. Where, as in this case, an older has to be made under Section 523, the Magistrate may in the enquiry proceed on such evidence as is available, and make an order for handing property to the per-Bon he thinks entitled, This does not conclude the right of any person. The real owner may proceed against the holder o...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Gangaram Santram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom135
West, J.1. The prisoner Gangaram may have been in a position to recover his tools from Girju. But the latter held by an apparent title, or at least an assertion of title that was not plainly illusory. Now the law is, that against even a colour of right a person aggrieved shall not take the law into his own hands: see Cape v. Scott L.R. 9 Q.B. 269 quoted in Virjivandas v. Mahomed AH Khdn. I.L.R. 5 Bom. 215 The conviction on the view of the evidence taken by the Magistrate is good. I would so inform the Sessions Judge....
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Apaji Vs. Babaji Bhaurav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-08-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom137
West, J.1. The defendant Ramchandra holds the property in dispute. He says he purchased it from the plaintiff's father in 1849, and has held it as owner ever since. It was transferred to his name as possessor in the -Government accounts under the Revenue Survey in 1854-55 (Exhibit 30), and has stood against his name ever since.2. The plaintiff says that he land was, in fact, mortgaged for Rs. 60 by his father to the defendant in 1854-55. This he asserts on the authority of his father, now deceased, whose information however, when the plaintiff was cross-examined, turned out to be no more than 'some land is mortgaged' to (Ramchandra) defendant No. 1. This, of course, was not in itself admissible evidence; but, having been admitted,, it afforded no basis for a claim to redeem any specific land on any specific terms. But the plaintiff says he paid a visit to the defendant Ramchandra a couple of years or so before the institution of the suit, and at the interview Ramchandra, he says admitt...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›