Mumbai Court September 1884 Judgments
Queen-emreess Vs. Pirya Gopal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom100
West, J.1. The question we have to consider is whether the District Magistrate had power to call for the proceedings held by a First Class Magistrate in his district. The answer to it depends upon the determination of the question whether the Court of a Magistrate (First Glass) is inferior to that of a District Magistrate, within the meaning of Section 435 of the Code.2. The point does not appear to have been decided in this Court, although for the purpose of sanctioning prosecution under Section 468 of the Code of 1872, corresponding, for this purpose with Section 195 of Act X of 1882, the Court of a District Magistrate was held to be superior to that of a First Class Magistrate Imperatrix v. Padmanabh Pal I.L.R. 2 Bom. 384.3. The High Court of Calcutta has, however, recently held that the Court of a First Class Magistrate is not inferior to that of a District Magistrate so as to give jurisdiction to the latter to call for a proceeding held by the former, and make an order under Secti...
Tag this Judgment!Vishu Shambhog Vs. Manjamma, Widow of Subaya Shambhog
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom108
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The decree of 1877 contains an order, in express terms, to the defendant to pay the plaintiff Rs. 37 as claimed by her for maintenance during the previous year; but, as to the future, it is, in words, merely declaratory of her right to receive maintenance at the above annual rate from the defendant and, therefore, strictly, we think, requires that a suit should be brought to enforce it, and so it would hitherto appear to have a been brought, as shown by the widow's Suit in 1879, to enforce payment of arrears for 1878 and 1879 in which a decree was passed. The defendant's objection, therefore, that the plaintiff's remedy was to recover maintenance by execution of the decree of 1877 is, in our opinion, not sustainable. At the same time we may be allowed to say that we share in the regret expressed by Sir Michael Westropp, 0. J., in Lakshmun Ramchandra Joshi v. Satyabhamabai I.L.R. 2 Bom. 497 that distinct orders, directing the payment of the future maintenance, sh...
Tag this Judgment!Ragho Salvi Vs. Balkrishna Sakharam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-23-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom128
West, J.1. The present plaintiff, owner apparently of a two-pie sub-share in property consisting of a two-anna share in a khoti estate mortgaged in A.D. 1827, sued to redeem a one anna eight pies part of that two-anna share. He averred that four-pies had been redeemed, in parts of two pies each, by two other hsarers. Such redemption in takshims or separate fractions might imply that there had been a division of the interests in the equity of redemption in a partition amongst the mortgagor's family, and that the mortgagee had assented, to this fragmentation of what in itself was an indivisible obligation entitling him to claim complete payment as the condition of releasing any part of the mortgaged property. But such a breaking-up of the interests so recognized would not have left in the plaintiff Ragho a right to redeem more than his own two-pie share which what the District Court has awarded to him on payment of a sum of Rs. 35. Whether, however, the share of the plaintiff Ragho in th...
Tag this Judgment!Ramchandra Kolatkar Vs. Mahadji Kolalkar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-22-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom141
West, J.1. In this case Moro sued Ramchandra for partition Ramchandra pleaded a prior partition, and alleged that he held the portions of certain lands sought by Moro as mortgagee. This the Subordinate Judge found to be true, and he decreed for redemption, on payment by Moro, of the amount due under the mortgages and costs Fending the litigation Moro's agent; Krishnaji sold to Mahadaji, the present plaintiff, Moro's interest in one of the properties mortgaged. After the decree his interest in the other property mortgaged was sold to one Hari Sakharam. These two purchasers came forward, and in a joint application offered to pay their quotes of the amount decreed on condition of the respective properties being given up to them by the mortgagee Ramchandra. This application the Subordinate Judge rejected on the ground that Mahadaji having become Moro's assignee before the decree, not after the decree had no right to get it enforced. He directed that Hari Sakharam, if so disposed, should be...
Tag this Judgment!Hurjivan Virji and anr. Vs. Jamsetji Nowroji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-19-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom63
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiffs claim in this case is that the defendants may be ordered to produce the document, dated 17th January, 1884, and lodge it for registration, and do all such acts on their part as may be necessary in order to obtain registration of the same.2. The document in question is stated in the plaint to be a demise from the defendants to the plaintiff of certain property situated on Kalbadevi Road for a term of throe years from the 1st November, 1883; but it is not disputed by the plaintiff, that, as a fact, it was an agreement or kabulayat, passed by the plaintiff by which he agreed to take the said premises on lease on certain terms. This document was signed by the plaintiff alone, and given to the defendants by the plaintiff. If, therefore, the plaintiff is now entitled to call Upon the defendants to lodge the same for registration, it must be in virtue of some undertaking, express or implied, on the part of the defendants'. It was, indeed, argued for the ...
Tag this Judgment!Appana Vs. Tangamma, Wife of Manjushetti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-18-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom106
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. We think that, having regard to the universal practice amongst Hindus for a married woman to wear a mangalsutra during the life-time of her husband without ever removing it, it must be regarded, as a part of her necessary wearing apparel, and, therefore, not liable to execution....
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Ramkrishna Vs. Govind Ganesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom94
West, J.1. The District Judge in this case has been influenced by the same arguments that prevailed with the High Court of Calcutta in Padmakumari v. The Court of Wards I.L.R. 8 Cal 302 : S.C. L.R. 8 Ind. 229. There it was supposed that the adoption of a son by a widow, though it had beta pronounced invalid for the purpose of divesting the estate of a deceased son's widow, might yet after the death of that widow be deemed valid or capable of validation for other purposes, and especially so as to give to the adopted son a preference as heir to the family estate over remoter descendants from the common ancestor. But the Judicial Committee in appeal declared that the previous decision had intended to declare, not only that the adoption could not effect the estate of the deceased son's widow, but that her existence and the vesting in her of her husband's estate had made the power of adoption incapable of execution by the elder widow, Now in Western India an express power is not necessary t...
Tag this Judgment!Nanabayaji and anr. Vs. Pandurang Vasudev
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-16-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom97
West, J.1. In the present case the Mamlatdar rejected the application of the present applicants, and referred for authority to a certain circular of the Executive Government. This was irregular, as in the exercise of his judicial functions he was bound to be governed by the law as he understood it, or as it had been expounded by superior judicial authority, not as it was understood or expounded by unjudicial persons. But the present is a case in which the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is invoiced, and we must guard against its being abused, merely because the Mamlatdar has fallen into a formal error. Under Section 332 of the Code of Civil Procedure a Subordinate Judge, on the application of the present petitioners, would have examined them to discover if there was a probable cause for their application, and, in the absence of reason to suppose they had been wronged, he would have refused them a summary investigation. A similar inquiry by the Mamlatdar would, it seems to as, ...
Tag this Judgment!Dagdusa Tilakchand Vs. Bhukan Govind Shet
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom82
West, J.1. It does not seem have been intended by the Legislature that any appeal should be entertained against an order made under Section 526 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The interference of the High Court by an exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction must now be limited according to the decision in Shiva Nathuji v. Joma Kashinath I.L.R. 7 Bom. 341 and this will, in general, prevent an examination of the view taken by the Subordinate Judge of the cause or ground shown under Section 526 on which he has based his assent or refusal to file an award. As his decision is thus clothed with finality, there is the strongest reason, on the principle laid down in the beginning of the judgment just referred to, why the High Court should scrutinize with care, from the point of view of its legality, the exercise, by a Subordinate Judge, of a power of so great consequence. If, therefore, there has in any case been a disregard of the law amounting to an excess of jurisdiction, or a perversion ...
Tag this Judgment!Rajaram Bhagwat Vs. Jibai, Widow of Khan Mahomed
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-15-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom151
West, J.1. This is an application by Rajaram Ramkrishna' praying that his name may be substituted for that of Krishnarav Anandrav, deceased, as respondent in Second Appeal No. 445 of 1883.2. Section 372 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that 'in other cases of assignment, creation and devolution of any interest pending the suit, the suit may' on terms be continued; but it has been contended that, where the respondent has died, the provision for the case of the death of a defendant in Section 368 prevents the application of Section 372 to the case. No doubt, as said in Lakshmibai v. Balkrishna I.L.R. 4 Bom. 654 the analogy of Section 368 is to be extended generally to appeals, and the party appealing may choose his own respondent as representative of one deceased. The more specific rule prescribed in Section 368 must, therefore, prevail in the cases to which it is exactly applicable over what from that point of view is the more general or residual rule in Section 372. But then the...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »