Mumbai Court November 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.
Bat Harkor Vs. Maneklal Rasikdas and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-30-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom621
Birdwood, J.1. We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge rightly decided that Ichharam, the executor of the deceased Lalbhai's will, was not a necessary party to the suit. The will was made when Act XXI of 1870 was in force, and under that Act, Section 179 of Act X of 1865 had no application to it so far as it related to any property out of Bombay. The property of Lalbhai did not, therefore, vest in the executor at any time before Act V of 1881 came into force.. It is contended, however, that the effect of Section 4 of Act V of 1881 was to vest the property in Ichharam, and that he alone, therefore, could sue. We cannot yield to this contention, for Lalbhai and his son Magan were presumably joint in estate, and on Lalbhai's death the estate vested in Magan by survivorship. On Magan's death in 1877 it vested in his. widow, the minor Magangauri on whose behalf the present suit is brought by the administrators of her property appointed under Act XX of 1864. Under the provisions, theref...
Venkubai Widow of Venkaji Anaji Potdar Vs. Lakshman Venkoba Khot
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-28-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom617
Birdwood, J.1. The plaintiff sued on a bond dated the 29th November, 1881, and payable in two years. The Subordinate Judge has held that the suit, which was brought on the 29th November, 1886, is barred by time, the right to sue having, in his opinion, accrued on the 28th November, 1883. The plaintiff has, however, correctly stated in the plaint that the cause of action arose on the 29th November, 1883, for the period of two years specified in the bond must be held to have terminated on the day of! the month corresponding with the day on which the bond was dated.2. In a recent case-(Application No. 46 of 1887, decided on the 2nd August last)-the same Subordinate Judge held that where a bond dated the 14th June, 1883, was payable in six months, the right to sue accrued on the 13th December, 1888, and that a suit brought on the 14th December, 1886, was barred by time. He relied on the ruling in Waman Dhondev v. Mahddu Balu Printed Judgments for 1885, p. 251; but this Court held that his ...
Balaji Lakshman Vs. Dada Joti
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom235
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that the last clause of Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) does not apply to this case. The payment of Rs. 38 by Balaji to Ganpatsing can be proved as a fact by the evidence of Ganpatsing supported by his receipt (exhibit 3) for such payment. See, Haji Abdul Rahiman v. Khoja Khaki Aruth I.L.R., 11 Bom. 13. The Subordinate Judge to be informed accordingly....
Naro Pandurang and ors. Vs. Mahadev Purshotam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-24-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom614
Bird wood, J.1. The decision in Sitaram Vinayak v. Ramchandra Babaji Printed Judgments for 1885, p. 24 does not govern the present case. All that was really decided in that case was that the assignment of the income of the village of Govardhan was not in contravention of Section 5 of Bombay Act III of 1874. Nor are the cases of Vasudev Vithal Samant v. Ramchandra Gopal Samant I.L.R., 6 Bom., 129 and Shivaji Nilkanth v. Tirko Bhimaji Nadgir Printed Judgments for 1885, p.206 exactly in point. In the present case, the plaintiff and the defendants were co-sharers in a kulkarni vatan and entered into an agreement, in 1869, for the performance of the duties of the vatan by the several sharers in turn. If any of the sharers prevented the nomination of a sharer to officiate in his turn, he was to pay Rs. 100 as damages to the person thus excluded from office or service. Damages are claimed in the present case in respect of the plaintiff's exclusion from office in the year 1883, when it became ...
Cassumbhoy Ahmedbhoy Vs. Ahmedbhoy Hubibhoy and Rahimbhoy Alladinbhoy
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-16-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom280
Jardine, J.1. The plaintiff Cassumbhoy is the eldest son of the first defendant Ahmedbhoy Hubibhoy; the 2nd defendant Hosseinbhoy, a minor, is another son of Ahmedbhoy. The parties belong to a family of Khoj as who have for several generations carried on mercantile business in Bombay. The plaint was filed on the 9th October, 1884. In the first three paragraphs it alleges that Ahmedbhoy's father, one Hubibhoy, son of Ibrahim, died in A.D. 1865, whereupon, and under Hubibhoy's will, dated the 29th December, 1864, Ahmedbhoy came into possession of a large amount of property, moveable and immoveable, which said property in his hands has been largely added to by the accretions thereof and aggregates, as plaintiff estimates, about 20 lakhs. In paragraph 4 the plaintiff says that 'according to the laws and usages by which members of the Khoja community in Bombay are governed, and which, in this behalf, are the same as are applicable to Hindus, the property aforesaid in the hands of the said d...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›