Mumbai Court July 1884 Judgments
Nilo Pandurang Vs. Rama Patloji and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom35
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. In this case the plaintiff was the purchaser, on 18th October, 1873, at auction sale of the land in question in execution of a decree obtained against one Bala bin Apa. The defendants were the purchasers from Bala bin Apa on 9th March, 1872, and on the occasion of the property being attached by the ' judgment-debtors in execution of their decree, entered an objection under Section 246 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1859 , which was disallowed on the 23rd December, 1872. It is not disputed that when the attachment was placed on the property it had been already mortgaged in 1870 by Bala, and was then in the possession of the mortgagee. On the 2nd June, 1873, defend-ants paid off the mortgage, and obtained a release from, the mortgagee of all claim upon the land and a receipt for the mortgage-debt, and were put into possession by the mortgaged. Upon the plaintiff's endeavouring to obtain possession of the land as the auction purchaser, he was obstructed by the d...
Tag this Judgment!Dulabh Vahuji Vs. Bansidhar Rai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-31-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom111
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiffs seek by this action to recover arrears of share in a deshpande vatan for the years 1870 to 1875, which, it was alleged, had been received by the defendant himself, a co-sharer in the vatan. It is not in dispute that since 24th August 1863, on which date plaintiffs obtained a decree against the defendant, declaring their light to the share of one Ganga Vahuji in the vatan, the plaintiffs have received no payment on account of their share. The Subordinate Judge held, on the authority of Madvala v. Bhagvdnta 9 Bom. H.C. R 260 that as there had been no payment on account of the plaintiff's share, nor any recognition of their title within twelve years before the institution of this suit, the cause of action to establish title was barred, and, therefore, also the claim to all arrears. The District Judge, however, was of opinion, on the authority of Chhaganlal v. Bapubhai, I.L.R. 5 Bom. 68 that as the plaintiffs had obtained a declaratory decree in 1863 ...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Javer and Magan Davlat Vs. Hathising Kesrising and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-14-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom56
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. It is plain that when this Court struck out the second plaintiff from the record and sent the case back for retrial on the merits, it meant that the Court of appeal should proceed to decide the appeal, as Hi the first plaintiff had been the only respondent.2. The Assistant Judge has treated the application in question as authorized by Section 365 of the Civil Procedure Code extended to the case of appeal by Section 582. But the present applicants to be placed on the record are not the representatives]of a deceased appellant, but of a deceased respondent. Section 368 enables the plaintiff to have the representatives of a deceased sole defendant placed on the record, so that he may continue his suit against them but there is no section in Chapter XXI which provides for the representatives of a sale defendant who has died being placed on the record on their own request, and, therefore, Section 582 can supply no such procedure in the case of the death of a sole resp...
Tag this Judgment!Chatturbhooj Meghji Vs. Dharamsi Naranji and Harjivan Dharamsi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-08-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom438
Birdwood, J.1. The principal issue in this case is the third, and it will be convenient to decide before dealing with the other issues. It has reference to the validity of a will executed by Meghji Dharamsi, the father of the plaintiff Chatturbhooj, on the 7th October 1882.2. Meghji was the son of the first defendant Dharamsi and the brother of the second defendant Harjivan. Up to the 7th October 1882, the father and two sons had, according to the plaintiff's contention, been joint in food, estate and worship. On that date, Meghji separated from his father and brother, and immediately afterwards disposed by his will, which is the subject of contention in this suit, of the property which then came to him, consisting of a sum of Rs. 6,000, which was at once placed to his credit in the books of the firm of Dharamsi Naranji, and of jewels and clothes then in the possession of Meghji or of his wife Ratanbai, which were considered to be worth Rs. 5,000.3. Meghi died on the 16th October 1882,...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›