Mumbai Court July 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.
Mahomed HuseIn Vs. Radhi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom46
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The circumstance that throughout the Code the terms 'arrest' and 'imprisonment' are employed as denoting different things, and, further, that in Sections 344 and 345 both 'arrest' and 'imprisonment' are mentioned where the provisions of the sections are intended to apply in either case precludes, we think, the larger construction that has been placed by the Calcutta High Court, In the matter of William Hastie I.L.R., 11 Cal 451 upon the term 'arrest' in Section 349. 2. Had the Legislature intended to give the judge the power of releasing the judgment-debtor when in jail, we should have expected to find 'imprisonment' mentioned as well as 'arrest,' as is done in the above sections. The decision In re Quarme I.L.R., 8 Mad., 503 supports the construction of the section. The question referred to us is answered in that sense....
Krishnaji Janardan Vs. Murrarrav and Narsingrav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-07-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom48
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The Acting Judge would appear to have treated the application as one to place Murrarrav and Narsingrav on the record for the purpose of executing the decree against them. In holding that they were not the heirs or representatives of Vithalrav he was clearly right, but he proceeds to consider whether they could now be placed on the record as heirs of Yashvantrav, or otherwise we do not understand how the question of limitation could arise. He says, and rightly, that they were every bit as much as Vithalrav necessary parties to the darkhast of 1878, and concludes that not having been made parties it is now too late to proceed against them. We agree, however, with the ruling in Ram Anuj Sewak Singh v. Hingu Lal I.L.R., 3 All., 517 that the application for execution against one of the representatives of a sole judgment-debtor saves limitation against another representative. The application would not, therefore, be too late as against Murrarrav and Narsingrav regarde...
Govindrav and anr. Vs. Ravji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom33
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The facts of the case as found by the District Judge are that the defendants are the mortgagees under Pandoji by registered mortgage of 1869; and that they afterwards made further advances to Pandoji on the same security in 1873. In the meantime, however, Pandoji had sold his equity of redemption to the plaintiffs in 1871. The District Judge held that as the plaintiffs had not given notice to the defendants of their assignment, they could not redeem the property, except on condition of paying the debt of 1873 as well as that of 1869. We do not feel sure whether the District Judge intended to hold that notice to the mortgagee in possession was necessary to complete the plaintiffs' title as assignees of the equity of redemption. By English law it is clear that the assignment of an equitable estate in immoveable property is complete without notice to the owner of the legal estate--Wilmot v. Pike 5 Hare's. Rep., p, 14, where the owner of the legal estate was the fir...
Gopi Mahablesvar Bhat Vs. Sheso Manju
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-04-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom358
West, J.1. The rulings of this Court in Venkatrav Shrinivas v. Bapu Rambaksh Printed Judgments for 1875, p. 40 and Bankat Hargovind v. Narayan Vaman Devbhankar I.L.R., 11 Bom., 370 show that an officer of Government who prosecutes for an injury personal to himself is not generally acting in his official capacity as prosecutor. If any particular class of interests is placed specifically under his tutelage, with a direction to guard them by the appropriate legal proceedings, suits instituted in the fulfillment of the duty thus assigned to the functionary are of course instituted in his official capacity. A similar remark applies to criminal proceedings. A prosecution by a functionary is official when in carrying it on he is discharging a duty expressly or impliedly assigned to him by law. If the duty of prosecuting in any particular case is not assigned to an officer as such, the consent or the order of his superior will not make the act an official one, which in its nature is not so, as...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›