Mumbai Court March 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.
Raghunath Gopal Vs. Nilu Nathaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-31-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom452
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal lies against the order of the District Judge dismissing the appeal as too late. We agree, however, with the decision in Gulab Rai v. Mangli Lal I.L.R. 7 All. 42 that as such an order disposes of the appeal, it is a decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (XIV of 1882) taken in connection with the last paragraph of Section 582, and, therefore, appealable under Section 540, The appellant justified the delay in presenting his appeal, on the ground that he was prosecuting an application for revision before the Special Judge under the Dekhan Agriculturists' Belief Act, which was rejected for defect of jurisdiction. This might, under proper circumstances, as to the existence of which in the present case we give no opinion, be regarded as constituting a sufficient cause for delay. Trimbakraj v. The General Traffic Manager of the G.I.P. Railway Company Printed Judgement for 1880,p. 345 a...
Fulvahu Vs. Goculdas Valabdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom275
C. Sargent, C.J.1. We approve of the ruling of Mr. Justice Wilson in Bhoyrub Dass Toburry v. Doman Thakoor I.L.R. 5 Cal. 139. The period of limitation for an application under Sections 366 and 271 of the Code is unaltered by Act XII of 1879. There is no objection I think to the proposed order being made by a Judge in chambers. Whether he could conveniently deal with the question of costs under Section 366 might be open to doubt.Bayley, J.2. I concur. As Judge in chambers I was of opinion that the order applied for in this case should be granted. I felt doubtful,' however, as to whether I had power to make it, and, therefore, I referred the question to the Court.3. That point being now settled, the alternative part of the summons will be made absolute.4. The following order was made:'This Court doth order that the suit shak abate, and this Court doth set aside such order for abatement, and doth order that the name of the said L. W. G. Rivett-Carnac, administrator of the property and cre...
Shankar Bharati Svami Vs. Venkapa Naik
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom422
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This is an action on a money bond alleged to have been passed to the plaintiff by one Vidydshankar, the guru of the defendant, and his predecessor in the office of svami of the math Kudalji, by which the plaintiff claims to make the defendant liable as the heir of Vidyashankar, and also to enforce the bond against the savasthan of the math. The Subordinate Judge hell the bond to be proved; that the money mentioned in it was paid by the plaintiff; that it was required for the purposes of the math; and that as the plaintiff honestly bettered it was so required, he was under no obligation to show how the money was spent; and ordered that the plaintiff should recover Rs. 14,400 from the property of the Kudalji savasthan.2. The only serious objection, which has been taken to this decree on appeal, was that, as the bond was a mere money bond, and did not, in terms, make the loan a charge on the savasahan of the math, although the loan might have been for the purposes ...
Hari Bhikaji Vs. Naro Visvanath
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-18-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom432
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. The plaintiff Naro sued Hari Bhikaji for Rs. 140-7-3 as so such money received to his use, the same being his half share of the profits of a field called Ringniche Agar.2. The Subordinate Judge made a decree for the full amount claimed. The defendant thereupon appealed, and the Assistant Judge of Ratnagiri modified, that decree by awarding only Rs. 105-7-3, with all costs on the defendant, holding, upon the defendant's contention, apparently raised for the first time in appeal, that the subject-matter of the suit was not res judicata.3. The suit being of the nature cognizable in a Court of Small Causes, and no second appeal lying in consequence, the defendant has applied to this Court to set aside the decrees of the lower Courts in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.4. In support of the application it is contended that the lower 'Courts had no jurisdiction to try this suit under Section 13, Civil Procedure Code, inasmuch as the matter in issue in this...
Triccam Panachand Vs. the Bombay and Central India Railway Company and ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-17-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom244
Bayley, J.1. The plaintiff in this case resides at Wadhwan in Kathiawar, and he has filed this suit against the defendants in Bombay through his constituted attorney, Makam-chand Joitha. It appears that he has already lodged Rs. 1,000 as security for the defendants' costs, but one of the defendants (Maganlal Parbhudas), being apprehensive that this sum will not be sufficient, has taken out the present summons under Section 380 of the Civil Procedure Code (XIV of 1882) in order to compel the plaintiff to give further security.2. Under that section it is necessary for the defendants to show that the plaintiff, who admittedly resides at Wadhwan, is not possessed of any sufficient immoveable property within British India independent of the property in suit. The plaintiff alleges that he is the owner of immoveable property within the cantonment of Wadhwan, that such cantonment is within British India, and that consequently, the section does not apply. The main question before me has been, w...
The London, Bombay and Mediterranean Bank Vs. Burjorji Sorabji Lywalla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-13-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom346
Scott, J.1. In this case I think I am bound to decide in favour of the plaintiffs, upon the authority of the case of The London, Bombay and Mediterranean Bank v. Hormasji Pestonji 8 Bom. H.C. R O.C.J. 200. The defence is, first, want of sufficient notice and, second, discharge from all liabilities under the Indian Insolvent Act. The only evidence that has been given has been with reference to the service, upon the defendant, of notice that his name would be included in the B. list of contributories in case he should not appear and show sufficient cause to the contrary, and of the further notice of the making of the call order of the 11th November, 1880, on the contributories whose names were included in the B. list. As to the balance order of the 24th February, 1881, it has been proved indeed, it is admitted by the defendant-that it was personally served upon him in Bombay. The previous notices, however, were sent to him by post. Mr. Stead, the plaintiff's agent in Bombay, has told us ...
Akoba Dada Vs. Sakharam and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom429
Charlei Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiff, who is a minor, by his mother as next friend claims to recover possession of land which, he says had been mortgaged by his father, Dada, to Harichand, the father of the defendants, and which mortgage, he alleges, has since been paid off. The defendant Sakharam claims to have bought the equity of redemption at an auction sale in execution of a decree obtained by Harichand against Dada. The District Judge held that the entire interest of Dada in the equity of redemption passed under the sale, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim.2. It appears that Dada was not alive when the suit (170 of 1871) was instituted, in which the equity of redemption was sold, and that it was brought against Dadas widow alone as representing Dada, apparently in ignorance of the existence of Dada's son. It was contended, however, that the plaintiff, although not a party to that suit, was substantially represented in it, and that the entire interest of Dada passed to the aucti...
Ugarchand Manackchand and anr. Vs. Madapa Somana and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom324
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiffs claim to recover possession of land (Survey No. 352), alleging that they hold under a karanama passed to them, on 2nd August 1880, by Mutyawa, the daughter of one Ugapa, The first and second defendants are the eons of one Somana' who, they say, was jointly interested in the land with Ugapa, The Assistant Judge, without deciding whether Somana and Ugapa' were joint, came to the conclusion that Mutyawa was at any rate not in possession when she passed the kararnama; and that, consequently, she could confer no title on the plaintiffs to sue for possession.2. This is doubtless supported by the reasoning of the Court in Lalubhdi Surchand v. Bai Armit I.L.R. 2 Bom. 299 and more particularly by the Full Bench decision in Bai Suraj v. Dalpatram Dayaahanhar I.L.R. 6 Bom. 380 where it was held, on the authority of the Privy Council decisions in Raja Sahed Pralhad Sun v. Baba Budhusing 12 M I.A. 275 and Rani Bhobosundri Dossah v. Issurshunder Dutt 11 B. L.R....
Gangabai, Wife of Sadashiv Vs. Kalapa Dari Mukrya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-04-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom419
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. We cannot agree with the District Judge in his opinion that 'as soon as the village became khalsa * * * * the alienee, and those who held under him, ceased to have any rights.' When an inam is resumed, the inamdar's fight to exemption, from the payment of the Government assessment ceases. He thereafter becomes liable to pay such assessment but all his other rights remain unaffected. Those who were his tenants before the resumption do not thereby cease to be such. The relationship of landlord and tenant continues, the same as before. If, therefore, the nature of the tenancy in this case be such that the plaintiff, under the circumstances which have occurred, would have been entitled to eject defendants 2 and 3, had no resumption of the inam taken place, such her right is in no way affected by the resumption. It is found by the District Judge that 'the family of the Mukryas (defendants) have been tenants of the alienee for over a century, and that the kaul (exhibit...
Eknath S. Gownde Vs. Jaganath S. Gownde and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-03-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR9Bom417
W. Welderburn, J.1. In this case the instrument sets forth (1) that Jagannath and Somnath relinquish their right to certain property in favour of their brother Eknath; (2) that Eknath is to discharge certain debts; and (3) that he is to pay an annuity to Jagannath and Somnath. The point for determination is whether stamp duty is chargeable in respect of stipulations (2) and (3)? The document is executed by Jagannath and Somnath, but not by Eknath. The provisions, therefore, purporting to be in favour of Jagannath and Somnath, are a mere recital of the consideration moving from Eknath., No interest in their favour is created by the document, which, therefore, so far as stipulations (2) and (3) are concerned, cannot be regarded as an instrument chargeable with stamp duty. We are, therefore, of opinion that it should be stamped as a release only....
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›