Mumbai Court April 1887 Judgments
Yashvantrav Vs. Kashibai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-28-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom26
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. We have already in the course of the argument, intimated our opinion that Mr. Druitt is right in holding that 'no specific sources of income are charged with the payment of this allowance by the decree.' Mr. Naylor, no doubt, directed that the allowance now in dispute among others was to be paid from certain sources of income specified by him in his report of the 13th April, 1870; but that decision was subsequently reversed by the High Court, and, on the matter being reconsidered by his successor, Mr. Baker, he came to the conclusion that 'the other items,' (among which the allowance in dispute is included) 'should be paid from Bhujangrav's and Anna Saheb's joint shares.' See his report dated 5th August, 1872. This decision was, on the 20th August, 1873, confirmed by the High Court, and ordered to be carried out. See Miscellaneous Cross Appeals, 8 and 9, of 1870.2. The only question, therefore, which remains for us to determine now is whether, according to Hindu ...
Tag this Judgment!The Bombay and Persia Steam Navigation Company, Limited Vs. the S.S. z ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom171
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Bayley granting a review. A preliminary objection has been taken, that in the present case no appeal lies, from that order.2. Section 623 of the Civil Procedure Code is the first section dealing with the subject of review, and it states the circumstances under which a review may be applied for. Then come Sections 624, 626, and 629, which are the material sections in dealing with the case now before us. The last of these sections provides that there shall be no appeal against an order refusing a review, but. that there may be an appeal against an order granting a review, where such order is '(a) in contravention of the provisions of Section 624, or (b) in contravention of the provisions of Section 626 or (c) after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed therefor, and without sufficient cause.'3. The question now before us is, whether the order of Bayley, J. allowing a review was 'in contravention of the...
Tag this Judgment!Narayan Chitko Juvekar Vs. Vithul Parshotam
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-25-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom23
West, J.1. The District Court in this case adjudged that the defendant should remove certain hedges and sheds by which the plaintiff was injured, but only on the plaintiff's delivering to the defendant two parcels of ground held by the former. As the land, it appears at the time of the decree, July, 1882, was occupied with growing crops, the decree deferred the time of fulfillment by saying that 'the plaintiff is to give the defendant possessions &Cr;, at the end of next Margashirsha (i. e., 9th January, 1883) and on his doing this, the defendant is to remove the hedges, &c;, and make over the land in suit to the plaintiff.' It is now contended that the specification of the end of next Margashirsha formed part of a condition precedent, and that having failed to 'satisfy this condition through his delay, the plaintiff has lost the contingent advantage bestowed on him by the decree, and can no longer execute it. The District Judge has understood the decree as merely fixing a time from wh...
Tag this Judgment!Shek Suleman and anr. Vs. Shivram Bhika Ji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom71
West, J.1. In this case the appellants became sureties along with a third person, under Sections 483, 484 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for the production of property attached in the course of a civil suit by the Court of first instance. The decree was in favour of the plaintiff as to part of his claim. Both parties appealed to the District Court, and in that Court the defendant, in order to get execution stayed, gave security for the fulfillment of that Court's decree. His surety was the third one of those who had bound themselves in the Court of first instance, and he does not now dispute his liability.2. The decree in appeal awarded a greatly increased sum to the plaintiff. The two sureties now before the Court, on their failing to cause the property of the defendant to be placed at the disposal of the Court of first instance for execution of the decree in appeal, have been held liable for the amount of that decree.3. They now contend (1) that the decree of the Court of first inst...
Tag this Judgment!Yashvant Narayan Adarkar Vs. Xavier J.J.V. Desouza
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-21-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom78
West, J.1. The present reference has not been made as to any point arising in a litigation between parties before the District Court in a suit or appeal or in a matter wherein the Court was in the proper sense called on to adjudicate,--that is, to pronounce on the opposite pretensions of contending parties. In the case of Ghella Tarachand v. The Collector of Ahmedabad Printed Judgments for 1882, p. 257 Sargent, C.J., and Melvill, J., held that the District Court could not refer to the High Court even a point that arose in a contention connected with the Land Acquisition Act, X of 1870, and such a case would, it seems, be more analogous to an ordinary litigation than one in which the District Judge had only to consider whether or not a pleader had been guilty of professional misbehaviour. An inquiry of this kind is of a disciplinary character. See In re Hardwick L.R., 12 Q.B. Div., 148. Being disciplinary, it is not litigious, and the fact that an appeal is allowed from the Subordinate ...
Tag this Judgment!Daji Himat Deceased, by His Son and Heir Kashibai for Himself and as G ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-20-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom18
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. The facts of this case are briefly these The property in dispute was, on the 22nd May, 1862, mortgaged by Rajkaran and his son Amra to one Bezanji. Rajkaran thereafter died, leaving a widow, Bai Shivba, and two sons, the said Amra and the first plaintiff, Parbhu, then a minor. On the 23rd June, 1866, Amra and Bai Shivba acting for herself and also as guardian of her minor son Parbhu created a further charge (exhibit 15) on the same property. On the 3rd September, 1867, they settled their account with the mortgagee, and obtaining a fresh advance passed a fresh mortgage-bond (exhibit C) giving additional security. Bezanji assigned his right as such mortgagee to one Muleshwar, who in Suit No. 2114 of 1869 obtained a decree (exhibit 17) against Parbhu as the deceased Amra's heir,--Amra having died in the meantime,--and against Bai Shivba as the guardian of Parbhu, and also against her in her own individual capacity. The decree directed the mortgage-debt Rs. 1,149 and...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›