Mumbai Court December 1884 Judgments
In Re: Basapa and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-24-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom172
West, J.1. We do not think the Magistrate was deprived of jurisdiction by the circumstance that the complainant was his servant complaining on his own account merely, though, in such a case, it would generally be expedient for him to refer the complainant to another Magistrate. We, therefore, reject the application....
Tag this Judgment!Dharamdas Santidas Vs. Vaman Govind
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-23-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom237
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. According to Bhagvan Dayalji v. Balu I.L.R. 8 Bom. 230 a Subordinate Judge invested with Small Cause Court powers, has generally to follow the procedure prescribed in the Code of Civil Procedure. This governs his proceedings both in trial and execution, whether the suit is a small cause or not. If the two jurisdictions assigned to the Subordinate Judge's Court and to the Subordinate Judge personally are locally co-extensive (which sometimes they are not), there is no distinction of sides or branches. But where, as in some cases, the ordinary jurisdiction is wider locally than the Small Cause jurisdiction, the Court is in that part of its territory which lies outside the Small Cause Court jurisdiction, to be regarded as a separate Court so far that a decree in a small cause should not generally be executed on property beyond the Small Cause Court jurisdiction without a transfer, i.e., a dealing with the execution as in a suit tried in the usual way, for reasons t...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Musa Asmal and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom164
West, J.1. Act XXIX of 1845, which first gave power to the Government of Bombay to appoint Joint Sessions Judges, vested such Judges with all the powers of the Sessions Courts, but at the same time prescribed that they were to exercise these powers only on such business as should be made over to them by the Sessions Judge. This Act remained in force until 1872, when it was repealed by Act X of that year. The same Act, by Section 17, provided for the appointment of Joint Sessions Judges The section says that these 'Joint Sessions Judges shall exercise all the powers of a Court of Session, but shall try such cases only as the Local Government directs, or as the Sessions Judge of the Division makes over to them for trial.' On these mere words it might be argued that it was intended to restrict the powers of the Joint Sessions Judge only in relation to the trying of cases, and not in other respects in which he might desire to exercise the jurisdiction of a Court of Session, as, for instanc...
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Hanmant Deshka Vs. Kondo Kashinath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-16-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom328
West, J.1. The judgment of the District Court of the 5th October 1863, does not deal explicitly with the claim to future payments set up by the plaintiff as hereditary gumasta. It does, however, deal with his hereditary right, and pronounces in favour of it, while it rejects the claim for arrears of salary. If the judgment and decree did not constitute between, the parties a relation in which the one Was commanded by the Court to do or permit something in favour of the other, the mere circumstance that the thing was in fact done in part from time to time would not and could not, create the supposed relation or give by a mere repetition of errors a right which had not been given by the adjudication. This would be equally so when the execution had been ordered by the Court on an ex-park application, though when the opposite party had been called on to appear, an adjudicative character would thus be acquired by the order then passed. The cases cited by Mr. Grhanasham, compared with Mangal...
Tag this Judgment!Babaji Vs. Lakshmibai and Two ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-08-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom266
West, J.1. As to the argument that the consent or acquiescence of two of the defendants gave the Subordinate Judge's Court jurisdiction over the case as against them, we observe that consent or appearance does not give jurisdiction to a Court of limited jurisdiction, though the waiver may be sufficient in a Court of superior jurisdiction. This is shown by the judgment of Brett, J., in Oulton Radcliffe L.R. 9 C. 194. There is a dictum of Bowen, L.J., in the recent case of Ex parte Pratt L.R. 12 Q.B.D. 341 which may seem somewhat at variance with what has just been said, but that was a case in which the Court had the requisite jurisdiction; the error consisted in its having been invoked in the wrong way. Such a case is plainly quite different from one in which the authority does not at all subsist. The consent which waives an irregularity or allows the Court to exercise a power Vested in it on a wrong reason instead of the right one on which it might have rested, cannot give the authorit...
Tag this Judgment!Rupa Jagshet Vs. Krish Naji Govind
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom169
Charles Sargeant, C.J.1. In this case decrees had been obtained against the plaintiff as the representative of his father Govind and brother Vithal, deceased, on money claims against the latter. In execution of those decrees the right, title, and interest of Govind and Vithal in the lands in question were sold to the defendant. The plaintiff now sues to recover the lands on the ground that they had originally belonged to the Athavle family, who sold them to the plaintiff's father as agent for Rambha Patabhirambhat Telang, who, in 1870, by deed of gift, assigned them to Vithal, and the plaintiff, who was then a minor. The Assistant Judge found the facts as alleged by the plaintiff, and also that the lands were assigned to Vithal (Govind and the plaintiff and their descendants in perpetuity as trustees for a religious purpose; that the sale in execution was, therefore,. void; and that the present suit was not barred until twelve years from dispossession there being no necessity to set as...
Tag this Judgment!Kalian Dayal and ors. Vs. Kalian Narer and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom259
West, J.1. The position of the plaintiffs in this case, expressed in terms of the English law, appears to be that they, as co-members of a division of a caste along with the defendants, and, as such, tenants-in-common with them of certain cooking vessels, are excluded by the defendants from a co-possession, and common use of those vessels. They seek, therefore, to have the vessels given over by the defendants to a person who should hold them to the use of the plaintiffs as well as of the defendants. As auxiliary to this aim of their suit, the plaintiffs no doubt seek to establish their title against the exclusive user assumed, as they say, by the defendants, and on this it has been contended that the suit is one for a declaratory decree, or for that coupled with an injunction. It is not more a suit for a declaration, however, than every suit is one as asserting a right which the Court has to recognize and declare as a basis for the relief claimed in virtue of an alleged infringement of...
Tag this Judgment!Samal Nathu and ors. Vs. Jaishankar Dalsukram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-02-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom254
West, J.1. The construction of Sections 525 and 526 of the present Code- of Civil Procedure has been the subject of several decisions in the High Courts, which take very different views of the subject. In the case before us, when an application was made to the Subordinate Judge to file the award, an objection, amongst others, was raised on the ground that the arbitrators had made their award several months before the date of the one brought in to be filed, and that as their authority had thus been exhausted, the latter so-called award was not really an award, but merely a sham award induced by improper influences. The facts relied on in support of this contention were denied by the party seeking to get the award filed, and the Subordinate Judge, after an investigation, decided against the objections and ordered that the award should be filed. He did not regard the objection as a frivolous or colourable one, but as of a serious character; but so regarding it, he thought he was competent...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›