Mumbai Court May 1887 Judgments
Krishnaji and anr. Vs. Vithalrav and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-05-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom80
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiffs, who are the sons of Yashvantrav, a deshmukh, pray for a declaratory decree that the defendants are not entitled to any portion of the profits of the deshmukh vatan, and for a perpetual injunction restraining them from executing a decree of 22nd June, 1859, obtained by them against Yashvantrav against the vatan property. The defendants base their claim on a sanad executed in their favour by Yashvantrav on the 26th August, 1850, by which he appointed them hereditarily the vatan gumastas, and as remuneration for the performance of its services therein particularly specified, assigned to them Rs. 201 in cash and 15 maunds of grain, to be deducted from the income of the vatan coming to their hands. Yashvantrav died on the 12th November, 1871. It is not in dispute that the vatan services were remitted on 23rd January, 1864, under the Summary Settlement Act, and that the office of gumasta is now a sinecure.2. With respect to the objection taken to the v...
Tag this Judgment!Mir Ibrahim Alikhan and ors. Vs. Ziaulnissa Ladli Begam Saheb and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-04-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom150
West, J.1. The necessity for a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860 in this case is not clearly established. Section 3 of the Act seems to contemplate the issue of a certificate under it only for the estate of a British subject, either resident within the district where a certificate is sought, or else having no fixed place of residence. Here, the deceased Mir Bakar Ali was a sardar of Baroda, resident there, where also he died. The representation of such a person would properly be sought in the country he belonged to, and the constituted representative would then sue, or empower some one to sue, in the British Courts. The Act does not make provision for the administration of the effects of a foreigner domiciled abroad. The plaintiffs, however, were, no doubt, bound in some way to establish their representative character, and the certificate sought, under Act XXVII of 1860, was not taken out.2. While Act XXVII of 1860 has regard to the person, Regulation VIII of 1827, on the other hand,...
Tag this Judgment!Manohar Ganesh Tambekar and ors. Vs. Lakhmiram Govindram and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom247
West, J.1. At an early stage of the hearing of the present case we ruled that the defendants, the shevaks of the temple at Dakor, could not be allowed now to put in as evidence the account books which they had in the Court of first instance refused to produce. After succeeding in his resistance to the production of documents, a party cannot be allowed, when the hearing has been finished and when his adversary has perhaps been driven to establishing his case on a quite different footing, to turn round and request that the document may be admitted. The precedents cited do not warrant such an indulgence, and it would certainly tend to the encouragement of chicanery and the defeat of justice.2. The plaintiffs come forward in the present case in the character of relators as persons interested in the religious foundation of the temple of Dakor dedicated to the deity called Shri Ranchhod Raiji. As persons interested in the maintenance of the institution and the due celebration of the worship,...
Tag this Judgment!Vishnu Chintaman Vs. Balaji BIn Raghuji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: May-03-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom352
West, J.1. The Special Judge in the present case raised the two issues of res judicata, on which the first defendant Gopal relied, and, further, an issue of limitation, on which, as well as res judicata, the second defendant Vishnu relied On this second issue no judgment has been recorded, and as a judgment was on the Special Judge's decision on the first issue absolutely necessary to the right adjudication of the case as regards Vishnu, the present applicant and the person really interested, we shall have to reverse the decision of the Court below; and send the case back for a fresh disposal by the Special Judge. As we have, then, to take this course, we may properly point out that the Subordinate Judge was right and the Special Judge wrong on the point of res judicata.2. In 1871 Gopal sued Balaji, Gyanu, and Hari, averring that he had formerly taken certain land in mortgage from the first two, which land had become his property by the operation of a clause of conditional sale (lahan ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›