Mumbai Court April 1888 Judgments
Ragho Vinayak Vs. Sheikh Daud and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom51
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. This is a suit to redeem. The mortgage sought to be redeemed was executed in 1854-55 by tae plaintiff's father to the grandfather of defendant No. 1.2. The Subordinate Judge made a decree for redemption. In e appeal that decree was reversed and the claim rejected by the Assistant Judge, on the ground of non-joinder of certain relatives of the plaintiff, who, he thought, ought to have been made parties to the suit.3. The question we have to determine in this second appeal, therefore, is whether it was neoessary to make those relations parties.4. The rule on the subject is that all persons interested in the equity of redemption should be made parties, especially if the defendant insists upon it as here. See Henley v. Stone 3 Bea. 355 No render Narain Singh v. Dwarki Lal I.L.R. 3 Cal. 397 Ragho Salvi v. Balkrishna-Sakharan I.L.R. 9 Bom. 128 ; Fisher, Section 1360; Story's Eq. Pleadings Section 185; and Daniell's Ch. Practice, 207 (4th ed.)5. We have thus to see whet...
Tag this Judgment!Naru Koli Vs. Chima Bhosle
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom54
1. The facts, so far as they are necessary for the purposes of this reference, are these : In original Suit No. 308 of 1881 a decree was made for the redemption of certain lands on payment by the plaintiff to the defendant of Rs. 30-7-0 and costs within seven months. The date of this decree is not stated in the reference. It was subsequently, on appeal, modified by the Special Judge, substituting Rs. 91-2-6 for Rs. 30-7-0. There was also another modification made which it is unnecessary to notice. This was done on the 23rd September, 1882. Thereafter on the 3rd October, 1885, the parties entered into an agreement, whereby (inter alia) the time to pay the above debt was extended to five years from the date of it. This agreement was not made with the sanction either of the Court which had passed the original decree or of the Special Judge. On the 18th February, 1888, after execution of the decree had become barred under the law of limitation, the parties applied to the former Court (Subo...
Tag this Judgment!Amichand Talakchand Vs. the Collector of Sholapur
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom234
Parsons, J.1. In this case, the Collector of Sholapur claims the right to attach a house, which now belongs to the applicants Amichand, in the execution of an order for costs passed by the Subordinate Judge of Sholapur under the following circumstances:One Nanchand made an application to be allowed to sue his brother Amichand as a pauper. Amichand stated that the applicant was a minor. The Government Pleader, to whom notice had been given, also appeared, and stated that the applicant was not a pauper. Two issues were framed by the Subordinate Judge, via., (1), Is the applicant a minor P (2), If a major, is he a pauper? He found on the first issue only, that the applicant was a minor and then passed the following order: 'As the applicant is not represented by a next friend or guardian, I reject this application under Sections 441 and 444 of the Civil Procedure Code. Under the circumstances of the case, I think 'it proper to throw all the costs on the minor's share of the estate.' Nancha...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. J. Grant
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-30-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom561
Birdwood, J.1. We called for this case on a review of the Karachi City Magistrate's criminal return for January last, which was forwarded to us by the Judge of the Sadar Court in Sind as the return of the trial of a European British subject. On an examination of the record and proceedings, the sentence passed by the City Magistrate appeared to us to be inadequate; and if the accused could be regarded as a European British subject, it would have been illegal. We, therefore, issued a notice to the accused, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to show cause why the conviction and sentence should not be reversed, and why he should not be committed to the High Court for trial.2. It is argued by Mr. Inverarity, the learned Counsel for the accused, that as he did not claim at the trial to be dealt with as a European British subject, he cannot now be regarded as such; and that as the offence was committed in Sind, where the highest Court of criminal appeal or revision is the Sa...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Ca Washi Ookerji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-27-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom114
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order made by Mr. Justice Bayley, the Commissioner of the Insolvent Court, on the application of the Official Assignee. The order directs the insolvent, who has for years been residing at Aligarh in the North-West Provinces and who is residing there at present, to come to Bombay and appear before the Insolvent Court in order that he may be examined with regard to certain property which the Official Assignee believes may be made available for the payment of the insolvent's creditors.2. The insolvent has appealed against this order, and two points have been raised on his behalf: first, it has been argued that the Court in Bombay has no jurisdiction to make such an. order against a person resident more than two hundred miles from Bombay; and secondly, that even if it has the jurisdiction, the granting of such an order is a matter of discretion, and that in the present case that discretion has been improperly exercised.3. The order in quest...
Tag this Judgment!Moreshwar Balkrishna Vs. Dattu and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-26-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom569
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. Since the passing of the Registration Act III of 1877 the preference given to an unregistered document accompanied by possession (where registration was optional) as against a registered document by the decision in Balaram Nemchand v. Appa 9 Bom. H.C. R 121 (as explained by Melvill, J., in Sambhubhai v. Shivlaldas I.L.R., 4 Bom. 92), has been taken away by the altered language of section SO of that Act. That section provides that every document of the kind mentioned in clauses a, b, c and d of Section 17, if duly registered, shall take effect, as regards the property comprised in it, against every unregistered document relating to the same property. The defendant's purchase, therefore, of the 16th April, 1883, is entitled to priority over the earlier, but unregistered, document on which the plaintiff's title is based, unless indeed the defendant had notice of it, in which case, under the ruling of this Court in Shivram v. Genu I.L.R., 6 Bom., 515 and Dundaya v. ...
Tag this Judgment!Bababhat Vs. Narharbhat and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom221a
Birdwood, J.1. The plaintiff sues as the adopted son of Chimanbhat to recover certain property in the Belgaum District. The defendant No. 1 denies the adoption and claims as heir of Chimanbhat. Defendant No, 2 supports defendant No. l's claim. Both he and defendant No. 3 deny that they are in possession of the land. The Courts below have found that the alleged adoption is not proved, and have rejected the plaintiff's claim with costs. We think that, as regards the defendants Nos. 1 and 3, that decision must be upheld; but that, as against the defendant No. 2, the question of the plaintiff's adoption is res Judicata, as it was decided in his favour by the Huzur Divani Court of the Kurundvad State, in the Southern Maratha Country, on a remand on appeal by the Governor in Council of Bombay of a suit brought by the plaintiff against defendant No. 2 for the recovery of land in that State. An authenticated copy of the judgment relied on by the plaintiff (Exhibit No. 3) is filed in this case;...
Tag this Judgment!Shivram Vs. Saya
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-24-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom229
Birdwood, J.1. The plaintiff claims certain laud under a registered deed of sale dated the 1st February, 1872. The defendant is the vendee of the same land from one Piraji Nhavi, who purchased from the plaintiff's vendor on the 15th July 1871. Piraji Nhavi did not register his deed of sale, but obtained possession of the land in 1882. The defendant's deed of sale is registered. The contest is between Piraji Nhavi's unregistered deed of 1871 and the plaintiff's registered deed of 1872. If we can hold that Section 50 of Act III of 1877 is applicable to the case, then the plaintiff must succeed, even though Piraji Nhavi took possession of the land. The High Courts of Calcutta, Madras and Allahabad have concurred in giving a retrospective effect to the provisions of that section so far as it refers to registered instruments. See Shib Chandra Chakravarti v. Johobux I.L.R. 7 Cal. 570 ; Kondayya v. Guruvappa I.L.R. 5 Mad. 139 ; and Abdul Rahim v. Ziban Bibi I.L.R. 5 All. 593. But the course o...
Tag this Judgment!Keshav Govind Joshi Vs. Jamsetji Cursetji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom557
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The Subordinate Judge is wrong in thinking that the pleader is only entitled to one-fourth fee under Section 6 of Act I of 1846-Gangji Vithal v. Sitaram Shridhar 9 Bom, H.C. R 33 . The pleader, in the absence of an agreement, is entitled to a quantum meruit, which ought to be determined with reference to all the circumstances of the case. The Court in assessing the quantum may be guided by the percentages laid down by law for the regulation of costs between party and party, but is not bound to adopt that guide where the circumstances of the case would render it unjust to do so. See the judgment in the above case and authorities referred to....
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Lakshmibai, Widow and Administratrix of Vinayakrav Jagannath Sh ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-23-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom638
Scott, J.1. This is a matter arising in chambers under Section 43 of Act XXVIII of 1866. I am asked on the petition of Lakshmibai, widow of the late Vinayakrav Jagannath Shankarshet, for my opinion, advice or direction; on certain questions of management or administration of trust property of which she is trustee. Under that section a trustee may apply, without instituting a suit, to any judge of the High Court for his opinion, advice or direction, and by acting on such opinion the trustee is deemed to have properly discharged his duty. Obviously the Court under such circumstances must act with caution, and only advise in matters when the rights of the parties inter se are not in dispute either in law or in. fact. The section is substantially the same as Section 30 of Lord St. Leonard's Act, (22 & 23 Vic., c. 35.) The decisions under that section show clearly under what circumstances and within what limits the Court will give its advice, and they are collected in Seton on Decrees, Vol....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »