Mumbai Court February 1888 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.
Lakshmibai Window of Sidhojirao Nimbalkar Vs. Santapa Revapa Shintre
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-08-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom22
Birdwood, J.1. This is an appeal by Lakshmibai, the widow of Sidhojirao, against an order in execution passed by the First Class Subordinate Judge of Belgaum. Before hearing the appeal, it has been necessary for us to dispose of two applications, made by Raghunath and Murarao, respectively, to be joined as parties. The application of Raghunath can be at once granted, as he was a party to the proceedings in the lower Court as the representative of Rakhmabai, who was a party to the decree of which execution is now sought, and the decree-holder, the respondent in this Court, consents.,2. The application of Murarao stands on a different footing. When Sidhojirao died after decree, the respondent caused a notice under Section 248 to be issued to his widow, Lakshmibai, and she was accordingly placed on the record as his legal representative; but Murarao now claims to be placed on the record as the son adopted by Lakshmibai to Sidhojirao, and, therefore, his legal representative. Lakshmibai de...
Musaji Abdulla and Anr. Vs. Damodarda's
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-07-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom279
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. We think an appeal lies in this case. The order of the District Judge under Section 545, Civil Procedure Code, is one determining a 'question... referred to in Section 244' (Clause 3), and one 'not specified in Section 588' Civil Procedure Code. It is, therefore, a 'decree' as defined in Section 2, Civil Procedure Code.2. [The hearing of the appeal was then proceeded with, and, on the merits, the decree of the District Judge was confirmed with costs.]...
Damodar Jagannath Vs. Atmaram Babaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom443
Jardine, J.1. I am of opinion that the document sued on is a promissory note.2. The plaint shows that the suit is brought on the promissory note as the original cause of action. The admission of the contents of this document made by the defendant in his written statement does not avail the plaintiff, the document being itself inadmissible in evidence from want of stamp-Ankur Chunder Roy v. Madhub Chunder Ghose 21 Cal. W.R. Civ. Rul., 1. My reasons for this opinion are those stated in Sheikh Akbar v. Sheikh Khan I.L.R., Calc., 256, which case as well as that of Radhakant Shaha v. Abhoychurn Mitter I.L.R. Cal., 721 the present case resembles, the facts of Golap Chand v. Thakurani Mohokoom Kooaree I.L.R. Cal. 314 and Hiralal v. 'Datadin I.L.R.All. 135 coming under a different principle.Bird wood, J.3. The Subordinate Judge has adopted an unusual course in mixing up a reference under Section 49 of the Stamp Act with one under Section 617 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A reference under th...
Gopal Anant Vs. Narayan Ganesh
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom329
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. The fact of the plaintiffs adoption by the deceased Ganesh Gopal is held proved by the lower Court. The only question we have to determine, therefore, is its validity. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that it is not valid because Ganesh Gopal was not a married man at the time of the adoption. No authority is shown to us in support of the contention that an adoption by an unmarried man is invalid, nor are we aware of any such. The Hindu law lays down generally that one who is sonless may adopt; and, in the absence of any text or judicial decision to the contrary, we do not think we should be justified in putting any restriction upon the power so generally given. The argument pressed upon us in support of the invalidity, of the adoption is very much the same as that unsuccessfully urged in N. Chandvasekharudu v. N. Bramhanna 4 Mad. H.C. R. 270 ;and we agree in the view taken of the Hindu law by the learned Judges who decided that case. It is true that was the...
Queen-empress Vs. Ganu Sonba and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-02-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom440
Birdwood, J.1. The conviction of the appellants rests upon the depositions made by them in an execution proceeding, in which they admitted their attestations of the deed of sale, which is proved by the evidence in the present case to be a forgery. In their examinations in the present case they deny their attestations; and if their depositions in the former case are excluded from consideration, there is nothing to show that they attested the deed of sale, The Sessions Judge, relying on the decision of the majority of the Judges who composed the Full Bench in the case of The Queen v. Gopal Doss (1), decided by the Madras High Court on the 4th February, 1881, has admitted the depositions. I concur, however, in the opinion of the two Judges (Kernan and Muttusami Ayyar, JJ.,) who dissented from that decision. I think that Section 132 of the Evidence Act, read with Section 14 of Act X of 1873, compels a witness to answer criminating questions, and that he is protected by the proviso to Secti...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›