Mumbai Court October 1888 Judgments
Fatmabai Vs. Aishabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom242
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of Scott, J. dismissing the appellant's suit by which, as widow of one Haji Adam Ismail, she claimed to recover from Aishabai, also a widow of Haji Adam, the share of her husband's estate, on the ground that the latter had forfeited it by remarriage.2. The defendant by her written statement denied that appellant was a widow of Haji Adam, and pleaded that the proceedings in a previous suit No. 227 of 1882, and the award and decree therein were a bar to the appellant maintaining the suit or obtaining the relief prayed therein.3. The above suit had been instituted by the appellant Fatmabai alleging herself to be the widow of Haji Adam, to recover her share of the estate of her husband. The suit and all matters in difference between them were referred to arbitration, and a decree passed in terms of the award made by the arbitrators by which, without recording any finding or even expressing any opinion as to whether or no Fatmabai wa...
Tag this Judgment!Gosavi Shivgar Dayagar and Gosavi Jagdevgar Shivgar Vs. L.W.G. Rivett- ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-12-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom463
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiffs in this case seek to have their interests under the will of the Gosavi Kasigarji declared, and that the Administrator-General may be directed to make over to them, respectively, such portion of the estate as they may be entitled to. After appointing certain persons executors and trustees of his will, the testator in the 6th Clause mentions that there are his two disciples, Gosavi Shivgar and Gosavi Jagdevgar (the plaintiffs in the suit), of the age of eighteen and eleven years respectively, and 'appoints them, to be his heirs, subject to the conditions written below.' By the 8th Clause, after having by the 7th Clause directed his trustees to pay each of his disciples Rs. 500 a year for maintenance, he directs that when Gosavi Jagdevgar shall attain the age of thirty, and in case his trustees should, in their opinion, find him fit to carry on business transactions, and he should observe his religious faith, they are then to give to him the net resi...
Tag this Judgment!Bhau Balapa Vs. Nana and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom343
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. We think that the Judge was wrong in holding that notice should have been given to the Collector as contemplated by Section 424 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That the Collector is a public officer when acting under a certificate granted to him by Act XX of 1864, is virtually settled by authority. In Narsingrav v. Lakshmanrav I.L.R. 1 Bom. 318 it was held that the Collector, who has been appointed to take charge of the estate of a minor under Act XX of 1864, is appointed in his capacity as Collector, and is, therefore, an officer of Government within the meaning of Act XIV of 1869, Section 32. In The Collector of Bijnor v. Manuvar I.L.R. All. 20 a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that a Collector appointed to act under Section 204 of the Bengal Act XIX of 1873 as the agent of the Court of Wards is a public officer within the meaning of Sections 2 and 424 of Act X of 1877, (which are substantially the same as the corresponding sections of the Code of ...
Tag this Judgment!Ramkrishna Sadashiv Vs. Chothmal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-11-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom348
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The facts in this case as found by the Acting Judge are that on 4th October, 1864, Narayan Kumbhar executed a mortgage of his house to one Khando. That on 25th June 1868, he sold the eastern half of his house to defendant, and that defendant then obtained possession of that half of the house. On 24th September, 1868, Khando sued Narayan on his mortgage of 1864, and obtained a decree on 28th November, 1868. On 27th July, 1875, Narayan passed an instalment bond to Khando for the balance due on the decree, and Rs. 25 on account of savai profits, giving the house as a security. Satisfaction of the decree was duly entered up and certified, and the mortgage was registered. On this mortgage bond Khando sued Narayan in 1882, and obtained a decree directing the mortgage money to be realized by sale of the mortgaged property in execution of which the house was sold to plaintiff on the 20th July, 1883, for Rs. 27.2. It has been contended before us that the plaintiff can re...
Tag this Judgment!ichha Dhanji and ors. Vs. Natha Minor by His Guardian
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-09-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom338
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The question for decision is whether the plaintiffs claim is barred by the Statute of Limitations. The Courts below have applied Article 59 of Schedule II of the Act of 1877. It is contended for the plaintiffs that Article 60 was the article applicable to the special circumstances under which, as alleged, the money was lodged with the defendant.2. It had been well settled by judicial authority previously to the passing of the Limitation Act of 1877, by analogy to the rule which obtains with respect to bankers in England as settled by the case of Foley v. Hill 2 H.L. Ca. 28 that the relationship between a native banker and the person depositing money with him in the ordinary way of business is that of borrower and lender, and that the money so lodged with a native banker can only be recovered as money lent, and not as a deposit under Section 1, Clause 5 of Act XIV of 1859, or Article 147 of the Limitation Act of 1871: see Nasir v. Dayabhai 10 Bom. H.C. R 300 Acha...
Tag this Judgment!Gulam and ors. Vs. Haji Badrudin
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-04-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom336
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. It appears that the Subordinate Judge having come to a clear conclusion on the evidence already before him in favour of the plaintiffs, did not think it necessary to have the remaining ten witnesses of the plaintiffs examined. On appeal this circumstance was not brought to the notice of the Court by the plaintiffs, as was the case in Bapu v. Shekh Ahmad Printed Judgments for 1874 p.92 nor did the appellate Court become aware of it by the judgment of the Court below, as in Hurish Chunder Ghose v. Gopal Chunder Ghose 20 Cal. W.R. Civ. Rul. 203 .2. Under these circumstances, there is not, we think, sufficient reason, on second appeal, for setting aside the decree of the appellate Court with a view to that evidence being taken. If the plaintiffs were contented, and by their conduct they must be deemed to have been so, to take their chance of having the decree of the Subordinate Judge confirmed on appeal on the evidence before the Court, they cannot be heard afterwar...
Tag this Judgment!Hormusji and Ratanji Minor by their Guardian and Uncle Bapuji Vs. Cowa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-02-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom297
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiffs seek to recover the property mentioned in their plaint and which was purchased by the defendant Cowasji at an auction sale on the 26th and 27th June, 1879, in execution of a decree obtained by one Bhikaji against Ardesir Edulji, the plaintiffs' father, on the ground that the property had previously been given to them by Ardesir by a deed of gift dated 19th June, 1875.2. The defendant Cowasji pleaded that the deed of gift was void as against the creditors of Ardesir, and, therefore, could not be set up to invalidate his title under the auction sale. The Subordinate Judge held this to be a good defence on the English decisions mentioned in his judgment. Those authorities, although turning upon the proper construction and application of the English Statute of Elizabeth, enunciate a principle of equitry which is equally applicable to the circumstances of this country, and they were, therefore, properly relied on by the Subordinate Judge in disposing o...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›