Mumbai Court March 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.
Parvatibai by Her Agent Sadashiv B. SaThe Vs. Vinayek Pandurang and or ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-29-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom68
West, J.1. In the present case the Subordinate Judge has in appeal held that Sadashiv, who, as agent under a general power, properly conducted a suit for Parvatibai in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Mahad, cannot represent her in the District Court in questions arising on appeal in the execution proceedings, Parvatibai, it appears, resides within the District of Thana, though not within the sub-division under the Court at Mahad, and the Subordinate Judge in appeal thought that the Pi representation by agent could not operate when the lady herself was within the jurisdiction. But it is to be observed that she rA was thus represented, and apparently with the assent of the defendants themselves, throughout the litigation which led to the decree now in question. Saddshiv, as appellant, acting for Parvatibai, obtained a decree against the defendants in the District Court. In the appeal thence to this Court, Sadashiv was made a respondent. Under these circumstances, we think that he c...
Lakshmibai Bapuji Oka Vs. Madhavrav Bapuji Oka and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-23-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom65
West, J.1. In the present case a decree, dated 7th September, 1865, ordered the delivery of property to the plaintiff, a widow, for her maintenance, or else payment to her of Rs. 36 a year for the same purpose. The property was not delivered, but the annuity was paid for some years; when a default occurred, the widow sought and obtained execution through the Court for three years arrears due in. August, 1881.2. The application, with which we have now to deal, was made on the 6th June, 1885. The District Court has agreed with the Subordinate Judge in holding the application was barred by limitation as having been made more than three years after the last preceding application under the same decree. For this decision the Courts rely on the cases Sabhanatha Dikshatar v. Subba Lakshmi Ammal I.L.R., 7 Mad., 80 Yusuf khan v. Sirdar I.L.R. 7 Mad., 83 Khan but it is to be observed that the former of these cases turned rather on the circumstance that the decree sought to be executed was declara...
Balvantrav Oze Vs. Sadrudin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1887
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom485
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The question in this case arises out of a suit brought by the appellant to recover possession from the defendant and others of 17,000 teak rafter or the value of the wood as damages, on the ground that they had out them illegally in his forest. The Subordinate Judge passed a decree in his favour on 31st July 1879, and gave him the rafters, or, as damages, Rs. 3,001. In appeal this decree was reversed on 3rd February 1882, and the plaintiff's claim rejected. The decree of the Appellate Court was confirmed by the High Court on 4th July 1883. In the meantime, on 1st November 1879, the rafters had been handed over to the plaintiff, who subsequently sold them for some Rs. 2,700 in March 1880. On 29th November 1883, the defendant applied to the Subordinate Judge to have the rafters restored to him, or to be paid their value, alleged by him to be Rs. 13,325. The Subordinate Judge, although thinking that the rafters were worth more than Rs. 5,000, only awarded to defend...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›