Mumbai Court September 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.
In Re: Ramkrishna
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom47
West, J.1. According to the former decision claims on the property admitted by the' parties or established by a decree of a Court should be entered in the certificate of sale and be computed as part of the purchase money.2. Other claims should not be entered or computed.3. The stamp should be provided by the purchaser....
Amarsi Vs. Dayal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-11-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom50
West, J.1. As the instrument in question is signed by the parties interested by way of assent to the award it thus becomes an instrument of partition and should be stamped accordingly....
Shaik Ibhram Vs. Shaik Suleman and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-09-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom146
West, J.1. The Subordinate Judge in this case was wrong in refusing to take the evidence of the two witnesses tendered by the defendant Ibhram, while the hearing of the case for the defence was still proceeding. It was not for the Subordinate Judge to pronounce, without hearing the witnesses, whether their testimony would he useful or not. If it had turned out that they had nothing of importance to say, and that the public time had been wasted in that examination, the Subordinate Judge could have thrown the costs needlessly incurred under the defendant, but he ought not to have taken' the conduct of the defendant's case and the production of evidence out of his hands and those of his pleader.2. In discussing the evidence of the witnesses, the Courts below have mistaken in some instances, what was really stated Thus the Subordinate Judge says, the witnesses proved that the deceased Sultan was a sufferer from leprosy, though in their vague and inconsistent descriptions none of them seems...
The Municipality of the City of Poona Vs. Mohanlal Lilachand and Ors. ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom51
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The Subordinate Judge was right in our opinion in holding that the provision contained in Clause 2 of Section 21 of the Municipal Act for forwarding the opinion, of the Municipality on the objections of the inhabitants to the Governor in Council is an essential part of the machinery provided by that section for the legal imposition of a tax. Had the object been solely to give the Municipality an opportunity of answering those objections,, we should expect to find a simple direction to, forward the objections with such comments on them as the Municipality might think proper. Clause 2, however, expressly requires the Municipality to take the objections into consideration and to report their opinion thereon; and it is plain that such an opinion might, either by the weakness of the arguments advanced in its support or by the disclosure of the fact that there was considerable divergence of opinion in the Municipality itself, lead the Governor in Council to the conclu...
Baswantapa Shidapa Vs. Ranu and Malkhana
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom86
West, J.1. In this case one Shidapa owed a sum, it is said, to Malkhana. Shidapa died, leaving a widow Tayawa and no son. Tayawa, therefore, was Shidapa's heir, he not having, so far as appears, any brother. The creditor Malkhana, desiring to enforce payment of the debt due by the deceased, ought obviously to have sued Tayawa, but instead of that he brought a suit against Shidapa's mother Baslingawa, and in execution of ex-parte decree against her as representative of Shidapa sold, or affected to sell, the house in which she dwelt, which was, in fact part of the estate then vested in Tayawa. An attempt was made to get the sale set aside by another Shidapa, who resided with Baslingawa, but this failed. It does not appear that Shidapa acted as agent for Tayawa, and we agree with the District Judge that she could not be indentified with Shidapa in his opposition to the attachment so as to be entitled to have limitation computed for her suit from the time of the decision against Mm, An una...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›