Mumbai Court March 1888 Judgments
Gordhan Dalpatram Vs. Chotalal Hargovan, a Minor by His Guardian Bai P ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-27-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom79
Parsons, J.1. Both the lower Courts have found that the wall in question is the property of the plaintiff and that the defendant has recently and unlawfully made in it cavities, such as a niche and a recess, and has placed a seat upon it. The Subordinate Judge found that the defendant had acquired no right of easement in respect of the wall, since she had not shown that she was entitled to vertical or lateral support from it for her own house, which is supported solely by pillars and cross beams placed on and over hero a own ground. The Assistant Judge finds also that the defendant's--house is quite independent of the plaintiff's wall, that it is supported throughout on wooden pillars adjoining the wall in dispute, and that the cross-beams do not penetrate or touch the wall. Nevertheless, he is of opinion that she has acquired a right over the plaintiff's premises to the extent that they shall provide the side wall of her first floor room and a retaining wall, 2 feet 4 inches high, to ...
Tag this Judgment!Bhawoo Jivaji Vs. Mulji Dayal
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-22-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom377
Birdwood, J.1. The Magistrate has found, on the evidence in this case, that the complainant, a Bhatia cloth-broker and shopkeeper, was stopped and questioned by the accused, a constable of the Bombay police force, regarding three pieces of cloth that he was carrying; that an altercation occurred between them; that the complainant was ultimately arrested and marched off in ignominy through the streets, first to the Girgaum Police station and then to Dhobi Talav, and that he was in police custody for upwards of four hours before he was finally discharged by Inspector Saunders without any recognizance being taken or charge framed against him. In his examination before the Magistrate, the accused said that he had taken the complainant into custody because he had assaulted him. The complainant denied that he had struck the accused, but admitted that he had a scuffle with him and that his hand might have gone against the body of the accused. It was contended for the accused, in the Court bel...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmant Lakshman Vs. Jayarao Nasinha
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-19-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom50
1. We are of opinion that the Subordinate Judge is right in holding that the bond executed to the minor is good in law, and may be sued upon....
Tag this Judgment!The Collector of Ratnagiri Vs. Antaji Lakshman
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-15-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom534
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case by his plaint, registered as a plaint in forma pauperis on the 10th July, 1864, alleges that the village of mauze Ambedu Khurd, taluka Ratnagiri, in the zilla of Ratnagiri, is his khoti vatani, and that the whole of the proprietary right belongs to him of either raising crops of any description whatever from, or of preserving and cutting the jungle and forest trees on, the lands of the said village; and he complains that since 1855-56 the Collector of the district has prohibited him from raising crops on the thikan 'kond assorda' mentioned below in his plaint and cutting trees on the village lands, and prays that the obstruction by the Collector be removed, and a decree be made for the payment by the defendant of Rs. 600 as damages.2. The Assistant Judge, having refused an application by the defendant for further time to put in his written statement, framed the following issues on the 5th November, 1864: 1. Whether the plaintiff has an...
Tag this Judgment!Bhagoji and anr. Vs. Bapuji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom75
Birdwood, J.1. It appears to us that the lower appellate Court, in arriving at its finding in favour of the gift of land relied on by the plaintiff, has adopted an improper method of dealing with the evidence. The Subordinate Judge had found against the alleged gift, but held that, at the marriage of the plaintiff's daughter-in-law Jaya, through whom the plaintiff claims, her father Bhagoji, who is defendant No. 2's vendor, made her a gift of land orally, and had the land in dispute transferred to her name in the Collector's books, and up to 1878 (when Jaya died) made payments of rice annually to the plaintiff. The Assistant Judge is of opinion that the defendants are bound by these findings, as they took no objection in his Court to the Subordinate Judge's decree. But that decree was in their favour. The facts found by the Subordinate Judge did not appear to him to warrant the inference which the Assistant Judge afterwards in appeal drew from them; and the Assistant Judge should not h...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Narmada Vs. Bhagwantrai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-06-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom505
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. It has been found by the Assistant Judge that the house in question was given to Rajkore by a stranger to the family; and that the moneys invested in the Government Savings' Bank were earned by Rajkore herself. The law of inheritance as laid down in the Mayukha, (which would determine the, course of inheritance in this case), prescribes that the devolution, of such property should be as if Rajkore had been a male; it would, therefore, vest in the plaintiff as the nearest gotraja sapinda-Vithaldas Manickdas v. Jeshubai I.L.R., 4 Bom., 219 . It is clear, however, and indeed was not disputed, that it would be contrary to equity and good conscience to allow her to recover the property from defendant No. 1 without permitting him to recoup himself out of it as to such moneys as he had expended either on Rajkore's funeral expenses or had paid at her desire to discharge the debts of her son Dhaneshwar. As the Assistant Judge has not recorded a finding on the fourth and ...
Tag this Judgment!ibrahimbhai Vs. Kabulabhai and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-05-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom72
Birdwood, J.1. The plaintiff was on two occasions an unsuccessful claimant under Section 278 of the Code of Civil Procedure to raise attachments placed by the defendant No. 1 on the property now in suit in execution of decrees obtained against the defendant No 2. The first order against the plaintiff was made on the 14th January, 1881; the second on the 9th June, 1883, and the present suit was brought within one year from the latter date. The District Judge has held it to be barred by time, inasmuch as it was not brought within a year from the date of the first order. But here we think that he is wrong, for though the order was made on the 14th January, 1881,- the attachment was, by reason of the judgment-debtor's having paid the money, raised on the 23rd March, 1883, on which date the plaintiff's right of action had not become barred. As the plaintiff's object was thus gained on the 23rd Search, though not on his application, and as he remained then, as he is now, in possession of the...
Tag this Judgment!Moro Raghunath Vs. Balaji Trimbak
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom45
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The plaintiff seeks to recover the principal and interest due on a mortgage-bond, dated 24th January, 1878, which was passed to him to secure Rs. 199 by Sakhharam and Vishnu, two of the three sons of Put a jishet Potdar, deceased. Subsequently, on 28th July, 1878, Sakharam alone mortgaged some of thee same property to plaintiff to secure Rs. 200 and interest to be repaid in five years. Subsequently a partition took place between the sons, and Vishnu and the third son Narayan respectively mortgaged portions of the lands comprised in the mortgage of 24th January, 1878, which fell to their share together with others, to the third defendant, on 27th January 1882, and the 6th December, 1883.2. In the meantime, the plaintiff had brought a suit on his second mortgage in 1881, and in execution of the decree which he obtained certain lands part of those mortgaged were put up at auction and purchased by himself, and satisfaction entered up of the mortgage-debt. We have al...
Tag this Judgment!Jugaldas Vs. Ambashankar and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Mar-01-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom501
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. We have already decided that no case of estoppel arises on the evidence against the defendant; but the important question still remains, whether the defendant was debarred by the Limitation Act from pleading that the plaintiffs' purchase of 12th September, 1878, was null and void for want of consideration and on the ground of fraud. As defendant was admittedly the tenant of the Ratansang Gokaji family, of whom the plaintiffs' vendors were members, he had no independent right to impeach the sale by his own landlords, and could only do so with their consent, assuming it to be still open to the latter to impeach it, It is not disputed that he has such consent; and the question, therefore, for consideration is, whether the plaintiffs' vendors could now impeach their own sale-deed.2. It has been found by the Assistant Judge that as early as 1879 the vendors complained before the Mamlatdar that they had been cheated and had not received consideration, and it may, ther...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›