Mumbai Court December 1888 Judgments
Motilal Ravichand Vs. Utam Jagjivandas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-22-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom434
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiff has brought this suit to establish his right to the property in question, conveyed to him by a sale-deed of 27th February 1886, executed by the firm of Ranchhod Jamna. The defendant, on the other hand, who claimed to be entitled to attach it in execution of his decree obtained against the above firm, contends that the plaintiff's conveyance was fraudulent, as having been made with intent to defeat and delay the creditors of the firm. The following facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff, who is a shroff doing business at Ahmedabad, had for several years made advances to, and discounted bills for, the banking firm of Ranchhod Jamna. At the close of February 1886, the firm of Ranchhod Jamna was in difficulties and finally stopped payment on the 27th February 1886. However, before the firm stopped payment, four sale-deeds, comprising all the immoveable property of the firm, were executed? one of which was the sale-deed to plaintiff of the 27th Februar...
Tag this Judgment!Dhunjibhoy Cowasji Umrigar Vs. Lisboa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-21-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom252
Charled Sargent, C.J.1. In this suit the plaintiff sues for an injunction restraining the defendant from erecting a building which will interfere with the addess of light and air through certain windows and aperture in the south wall of the plaintiff's house, or, in this alternative for damages. It is admitted that the windows in question are ancient windows, and it is also admitted that the building' now in course of erection by the defendant will largely diminish the amount of light and air which until now has passed through these windows into the rooms of the plaintiff's house. The important question which arises is whether the' Court will grant an. injunction or damages to the plaintiff.2. The power of the Courts of India to grant a perpetual injunction is determined by the Specific Relief Act I of 1877, Section 54, which provides that the Court may grant such an injunction 'when the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff's right to, or enjoyment or, property;' and ...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Murarji Gokuldas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-20-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom389
1. In this case the offence charged was that of assault with a wooden shoe. The pleaders for the prosecution and defence respectively agreed that if the principal witness would give his evidence on an oath specially binding on him--to wit, on the gita--they would, under Sections 8 to 11 of the Oaths Act, accept the evidence as conclusive proof of the matter stated. The witness took the agreed oath, and then in substance stated there was not only no assault with a wooden shoe, but no assault at all--only a taking hold by the hand. The Magistrate, without discussing the point of law now raised, refused to consider this evidence as conclusive in fact, and found the accused guilty and fined him Rs. 25. The case comes before us on revision, on the ground that the agreement under the Oaths Act should have been carried out by the Magistrate. The agreement no doubt would have been binding in a civil proceeding. But this was a criminal proceeding, and we have to consider whether the term in Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Bibi Ladli Begam Vs. Bibi Raje Rabia
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-18-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom650
Birdwood, J.1. The plaintiff sued to recover the sum of Rs. 66-10-8, due to her by way of maintenance, and payable out of a sum of Rs. 200 in the defendant's hands, which the defendant had received from the Talukdari Settlement Officer for distribution to the persons entitled to maintenance from a talukdari estate under the management of the Settlement Officer. The suit was heard in the Joint Subordinate Judge's Court at Ahmedabad, arid the defendant pleaded that the Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to hear the suit, as it was cognizable by the Court of Small Causes alone. The Subordinate Judge overruled this plea, but rejected the claim on the merits. The plaintiff appealed to the District Court, which reversed the Subordinate Judge's decision and awarded the claim. In the District Court, the defendant did not renew the objection to the Court's jurisdiction which she had taken in the Subordinate Court; but she now takes that objection in her present application under Section 622 ...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Shankar
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-13-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom384
Birdwood, J.1. The granting of a sanction under Clause (c) of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to a private person does not, in our opinion, bar a Civil Court from proceeding under Section 478; nor can the dismissal by a Magistrate of a complaint made by the private person be held to be a bar, till set aside, to a proceeding under that section. A private person may never act on the sanction, or his sanction may fail, as in the present case. Is the Court, then, unable to take such further action as the interests of justice may demand? It seems to us that, even though a Court grants a sanction under Section 195, it is still at liberty to proceed under Section 478, especially under such circumstances as existed in the present case, where there was ground to suspect that the accused had induced the private complainant to withdraw from the prosecution. The Sessions Judge should therefore, proceed with the trial.Jardine, J.2. The two questions stated by the learned Judge relate ...
Tag this Judgment!Jamsetji Burjorji Bahadurji Vs. Ebrahim Vydina and Ardesir Burjorji Ba ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-10-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom183
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiff claims in this suit to render the defendant Vydina liable for the consequences of a fire which took place on the 6th April last in a cotton press at Indore, of which the defendant Vydina was then in possession, and which his servants were working. The fire originated in a part of the press called the opener, and was probably caused by a stone passing into it along with the cotton. The press belonged to a firm the partners in which were the plaintiff Jamsetji and his brother the defendant Ardesir.2. On the 7th August, 1884, Ardesir entered into a contract with Vydina to sell the press and certain rights connected with it to Vydina for Rs. 35,000, of which sum Vydina paid Rs. 5,000 to Ardesir and was then put in possession of the press. On the 5th September, 1884, Jamsetji filed a suit for dissolution of partnership and to have its accounts taken against Ardesir, and in the plaint he states that he had heard that Ardesir had on or about the 1st Septe...
Tag this Judgment!Emnabai and ors. Vs. Hajirabai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-07-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom352
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The question in this case is as to the validity of two deeds of gift executed by the deceased Haji Gazi Ahmed, in favour of his widow, the defendant Hajirabai, on the 25th March, 1871, and 30th May, 1883.2. The deceased died on the 13th March, 1884. The first deed of gift relates to a house which, at the time of the gift and up to the death of the donor, was occupied by tenants, and its validity is impugned on the ground that the widow was not put into possession as required by Mahomedan law. It is not in dispute that, after this execution of the deed of gift, Haji Gaji continued to collect the rents as before, and that they were entered in his books and drawn upon for family purposes in the same manner as they had always been. But in 1876 the house was transferred into the name of the wife in the municipal books; and in 1877 the fazandari bill was made out in her name. Lastly, in 1881-82 Haji Gazi had an account of the rents of the first house prepared in the n...
Tag this Judgment!Maloji Vs. Sagaji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Dec-03-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom567
Birdwood, J.1. The plaintiff sues to recover the amount of his mortgage-debt from the defendants personally, and by sale of the mortgaged property. The defendants obtained on 12th November, 1883, a decree for redemption, which was confirmed, on appeal, on the 24th September, 1884; and on the 8th April. 1885, they paid into Court the amount due under the decree. The presesent suit was filed on the 26th November, 1884; and the Subordinate Judge has awarded the claim, on the ground that the decree for redemption contained no provision by which the mortgagee could recover the debt due to him, and that the debt had not been paid at the date when the suit was filed. The redemption decree simply declared the amount of the debt duo under the mortgage, and provided no time within which it should be paid, or the mortgage foreclosed.2. We think that the Subordinate Judge's decree has been rightly reversed by the Assistant Judge. In the former suit, it was open to the present plaintiff, the mortga...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›