Mumbai Court August 1884 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.
Bholabhai Vs. Adesang
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-12-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom75
West, J.1. In the present case the material question between the parties was undoubtedly raised in the previous suit between them, That question is, whether the tenancy held by the plaintiff under the Thakurs is or is not subject to enhancement of the rent paid by him. In the former suit it was ruled that the right to enhance by the Thakurs, and by the Government officers representing the Thakurs, existed. This would ordinarily be an adjudication on the question of right or jural relation between the parties which would bind them in any future litigation within the scope to the decision--Mahima Chunder Mojoomdar v. Asradka Dassia 21 Cal. W.R. 207, C.R.; Nobo Doorga Dosse v. Fyz Buksh Chowdhry 24 Cal. W.R. 403; Krishna Behari Boy v. Brojishwarij Chowdranee L.R. 2 IndAp 283.2. But in this instance the earlier decision was in a cause of less than Rs. 500 in amount, and for this reason a special or second appeal made by the plaintiff was dismissed as not cognizable by this Court. The prese...
Balkrishna Chimnaji Vs. Balaji Ramchandra and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-04-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom25
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. In this case plaintiff had applied to the Assistant Collector to have his name entered on the register of representative vatandars, as the heir of Chimnaji, a registered vatandar, which was objected to by the defendants. By his present plaint he claims to be entitled to have his name entered in place of his father, and prays for a declaration that he is entitled to a one-fourth share in the kulkarni vatan and to have his name entered in the vatan register. The Subordinate Judge held that plaintiff ought to have sued to establish his right to be the adopted son of Chimnaji, and rejected his plaint. The District Judge held that the plaintiff's claim to have it declared that plaintiff is a one-fourth sharer in a vatan would not lie in a Civil Court, and confirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge.2. The decisions in Rhando Narayan Kulkarni v. Apaji Sadashiv Kulkarni I.L.R. 2 Bom. 370 and Chinto Abaji Kulkarni v. Lakshmibai I.L.R. 2 Bom. 375 show that since the pa...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›