Mumbai Court October 1887 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.
Nagar Valab Narsi Vs. the Municipality of Dhandhuka
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-05-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom490
West, J.1. The defendants other than the Municipality of Dhandhuka were improperly admitted as parties to set up a case against the plaintiff which had no natural connexion with the suit as against the Municipality. Whether the added defendants had a right to an injunction or other relief against the plaintiff, on the ground of his proposed erection interfering with the access of light and air to their premises, was a question entirely different from that of whether the plaintiff had a good ground for relief against the Municipality, which had forbidden him, under Section 33 of Bombay Act VI of 1873, to go on with his proposed building. The case has been disposed of entirely by reference to the authority asserted by the Municipality and denied by the plaintiff, and we propose to limit ourselves to the contention on that point without pronouncing on the private rights and obligations subsisting or not subsisting between the plaintiff and the defendants Nos. 2-5.2. The plaintiff being ow...
Shridhar and anr. Vs. Hiralal Vithal and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom480
West, J.1. In this case one Girdhar Vithal died, leaving a widow and an infant daughter, named Bani, who was but a few months old at the time of Girdhar's death. Her mother Mathurabai seems to have been forced by the unkindness of her mother-in-law Rakhmabai to go away from the house of her husband's family and take refuge with her brothers Shridhar and Goverdhan. In their house she died about eighteen months after the death of her husband, and the orphan Bani has, since her mother's death, been brought up by Shridhar and Goverdhan.2. It appears that a few years ago the brother of Girdhar Vithal, who is named Hiralal, endeavoured through the Mamlatdar to obtain the custody of Bani's person. He failed in this attempt, and as the Mamlatdar was not the proper authority to apply to, no significance can be attached to the application. Had Hiralal seriously desired to insist on his right and to take on himself the burden of the guardianship of the orphan Bani, he would have applied to the Ci...
Pitamber Vajirshet Vs. Dhondu Navlapa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom486
West, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued for damages for the wrongful removal of a tree. The Court of first instance rejected his claim, which was in itself of the nature of a small cause, but which the Subordinate Judge, though invested with the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Small Cause Court, tried according to the rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. An appeal was made to the District Court, which reversed the Subordinate Judge's decree and awarded the sum claimed, Rs. 5, with costs.2. To the objection now raised, that no appeal lay to the District Court, it is answered that as the Subordinate Judge did not use the procedure of Act XI of 1865 in trying the case, he must be held to have tried it under his ordinary jurisdiction. Hence it is urged it was not a case to which Section 21 of the Act or indeed any section of it applied, and, therefore, under Section 540 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal was properly admitted. But though Section 28 of Act XIV of 1869 does not, whe...
Karsandas Natha and ors. Vs. Ladkavahu Karamsi Madhowji, (a Minor), an ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-01-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom185
Farran, J.1. I do not think that any advantage would be gained by delaying my judgment in this case, and I will, therefore, give my decision at once. I will take the issues in their order.2. The first I have already decided, and have held that the Advocate General is not a necessary party to this suit. The eighth issue may be taken in connection with the first. All parties are willing that the charities should be carried out; and as there is nothing which is shown to be invalid in the charitable bequests in the will, I will find the eighth issue in the affirmative. The intention of the testator is clear, and as all parties are desirous that his intention should be effectuated, even though there may perhaps be some doubt as to its perfect legality, I will not endeavour to discover it.3. The third issue also I decide in the affirmative, no evidence having been offered with regard to it.4. Next comes the fourth issue. I decide this issue in accordance with the contention put forward on be...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›