Mumbai Court February 1885 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.
Manohar Ramchandra and anr. Vs. Lakshman Mahadev
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom371
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. We concur in the opinion of the Subordinate Judge....
Gangadhar Bhivrav Vs. Datto Krishnaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-26-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom368
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. As the declaration of insolvency was ultra vires, the Subordinate Judge should take no further steps to give effect to it, and leave the parties concerned to take such measures as they may be advised....
Nirvanaya Vs. Nirvanaya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-24-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom365
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. In the present case the plaintiff disputes the validity of a compromise, dated the 26th May, 1863, entered into in his behalf, when a minor, by his natural further, on the ground that his father had no authority to make it, and, further, that there was no necessity for it. It appears that the compromise arose out of the rival claims made on behalf of the plaintiff and the fourth defendant by their respective fathers to be the heir of one Chanmalaya Svami, a virakt, or religious celebate. Both the Courts below have found that the compromise, having for its object to put an end to litigation, was, under the circumstances, for the benefit of the plaintiff; but the District Judge held that, as the plaintiff had been adopted by Chanmalaya, his natural father, who had not obtained certificate of guardianship, had no authority to enter into the agreement of compromise; and he added that the policy of Hindus was opposed to a divided math. The fourth defendant now appeal...
Bhagu Jetha Vs. Malek Bawasaheb
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-23-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom318
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The decree of which execution was sought by the appellant on the 21st June 1882 was passed on the 1st September 1865., His last preceding application for execution was made on the 31st July 1879, and was granted. It is contended for the appellant that when the Court's bailiff went in pursuance of the order made on- that application, to the house of the respondent (the judgment-debtor) to attach his property, he was prevented by the respondent from attaching it. Evidence was adduced to show that the respondent, on seeing the bailiff approach his house, left the verandah and went inside the house, and chained the door and refused to open it when called on to do so by the bailiff.2. It is admitted by respondent's pleader that if this evidence is true, and that if the conduct ascribed to the respondent amounted to fraud, within the meaning of Section 230 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application of 21st June 1882, was not barred by time. We see no reason for d...
Coverji Luddha and Kesserbai, His Wife Vs. Morarji Punja
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-20-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom183
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit are the owners of a house situate in Hornby Row, on land held by them under an agreement made with the Secretary of State for India. The defendants are the owners of an adjoining house built on land which they also hold under an agreement with the Secretary of State, the terms and stipulations of which are precisely the same as those contained in the agreement made with the plaintiff. Under these agreements the plaintiff and defendants were required to erect buildings of a specified description within a certain prescribed time, and it was provided that the buildings to be erected should be 'continuous, with party walls common to both adjoining houses.'2. Both parties accordingly proceeded to build the houses which now stand on the two plots of land mentioned in the agreements, and they employed the same contractor.3. The wall in question in this suit is the wall to the north of the plaintiff's house. The defendants have made use of a ...
Jagabhai Lallubhai Vs. Rustamji Nasarwanji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom311
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This suit arises out of the following undisputed facts. The firm of Sowerby & Co., the partners of which were William Sowerby and Framji Edulji took a contract from Government, on 12th November 1877, to construct a barrel-house at the Gunpowder Manufactory at Kirkee, and, on the 28th November 1877, agreed with the plaintiff to advance monies up to Rs. 15,000 for the purpose of carrying out the contract, the plaintiff to receive all sums to become due from the Government on the contractors' bills, and to pay the balance to the firm after satisfying the advances, with interest. On the same day the firm executed a power of attorney to the plaintiff, authorizing him to receive from the Government Engineer all such sums to become due to the firm under the contract, which power of attorney was deposited by plaintiff in the office of the Executive Engineer at Poona.2. In March or April 1878 Sowerby left for England, up to which time Rs. 34 900 had been advanced by plai...
Dayabhai Tribhovandas Vs. Lakhmichand Panachand
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom358
Birdwood, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover a sum of Rs. 100 paid to defendant, as a deposit, on account of the value of the dividends on 50 shares in the original capital of the Empress Spinning and Weaving Company, alleged to have been purchased by plaintiff for the period from the 1st June, 1880, to the 31st December, 1881. The defendant was the owner of the shares, and the alleged purchase was at the rate of Rs. 37 for each dividend. It is stated in the plaint that, when making the purchase on the 21st January, 1882, the plaintiff was under the impression that a dividend would be declared after that date; whereas it had already been declared on the 17th January, 1882.2. From the evidence, it appears that the dividend declared was at the rate of Rs. 25 for each share.3. The plaintiff asked that the deposit should be returned to him with damages, amounting to Rs. 6, for the wrongful detention of the money, on the ground that the contract of purchase must (on account of his ignorance...
Bki Anope, Widow of Narsi Gokaldas Vs. Mulchand Girdhar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-17-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom355
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The Subordinate Judge has rejected the plaint on two somewhat inconsistent grounds. First, that it was improperly stamped, because it was not a simple declaratory suit but prayed for other relief; and, secondly, because, regarded as a declaratory suit, it was precluded by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act (I of 1877). As to the first of these grounds the Sub. ordinate Judge's decision as to the stamp is, on the decisions of this High Court, binding on us-Narayani Madhavraoo Neik v. The Collector of Thana I.L.R. 2 Bom. 145 and Manohar Ganesh v. Bawa Ramcharandas I.L.R. 2 Bom. 219; but reading Section 54 of the Civil Procedure Code (XIV of 1882) with Section 12 of the Court fees Act, 1870, he was not, we think, justified in rejecting the plaint without giving the plaintiff an opportunity of affixing the proper stamp, which appears not to have been done.2. As to the second ground, the Subordinate Judge 'was right in holding that the plaint (which, in our opinio...
In Re: Reference by the Sessions Judge of Surat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-12-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom352
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. If the applications mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Acting Sessions Judge's letter (No. 187) of 27th January, 1885, be applications for the exercise of the Sessions Judge's power under Chapter XXXII of the Criminal Procedure Code (Act X of 1882), we think Mr. Thakur's view of the law to be correct. Section 193, Clause 2, refers only to cases which, are to be made over to the Joint Sessions Judge for trial,...
In Re: Raja Paba Khoji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-05-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom272
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. The words, which appear to be very important in Section 66 of the Apt in reference to the present case, are 'no place shall be used as a market'*. The word 'place,' as defined in Section 3 of the Act, does not include a house or an ota. In another part of tile defining section the word 'land' is used to include a building, and the word 'bazar' to include a collection of shops. The word 'building' as well is defined. If that word had been used in Section 66 it would have included the ota of a private house, but that word does not; appear in the section.2. The next point for consideration is, whether the ota was used 'as a market' within the meaning of Section 66, The fact found is that the petitioner sold vegetables on the old. It seems, therefore, that the old was used as a shop, and not as a market.3. Though the Magistrate refers to other persons selling vegetables on otas near the shop of the petitioner, there is nothing to show that the petitioner had anything...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »