Mumbai Court June 1888 Judgments
Krishnaji Janardhan Vs. Morbhat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-25-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom276
Birdwood, J.1. The plaintiff sues, as the adopted son of Shivram, to recover his one-half share of certain immoveable property, or one-half of its future income, from the defendants, and also to restrain the defendants from obstructing him in the enjoyment of certain moneys. The defendant No. 1, Krishnaji, is the son of Shivram's brother, Janardhan; and the defendant No. 2 is the alienee of a part of the property in suit from Krishnaji. The lower Court granted the claim against the defendant No. 1, who now appeals.2. His learned Counsel, in arguing the appeal, does not contest the finding of the lower Court that the two brothers Shivram and Janardhan had made a partition of the family property in A.D. 1838, and were not subsequently re-united. Nor does he contest the validity of the plaintiff's adoption, which took place in 1872. But he says that the claim is barred by time, because, on the death of Shivram's minor son, Mahadevbhat, in 1856, the defendant No. 1 held the property in sui...
Tag this Judgment!Mahant Ishwargar Vs. Chudasama Manashai and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-20-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom106
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The Subordinate Judge has granted the plaintiffs' application made in execution of the decree obtained by them in their redemption Suit No. 1107 of 1877, on the ground that it is the practice of the English Court of Chancery to enlarge the time for payment of the mortgage-debt; that such a practice is recognised by the Transfer of Property Act; and that there were sufficient grounds alleged for exercising the power of enlargement. As to the practice of the Court of Chancery, it would appear from the judgment in Novosielski v. Wakefield 17 Vesey. 417 that under special circumstances, the Court will enlarge the time given in a redemption decree, but the question here is whether the Court executing the decree has the power to do so. The proviso to Section 93 of the above Act empowers the Court to postpone the day fixed in a redemption suit under Section 92, as to which it may be a question whether this proviso would apply to a case like the present where the applic...
Tag this Judgment!Jamsedji Sorabji Vs. Lakshmiram Rajaram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-19-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom323
Birdwood, J.1. The plaintiff sued to eject the defendant, his tenant, on the ground that he had failed to pay rent for three years. Under the lease, such failure operated as a forfeiture. The defendant pleaded that he had paid rent, either to the plaintiff's co-sharer, to the plaintiff and the co-sharer jointly. The Courts below rightly disregarded this plea, as it was not open to the defendant to set it up after taking a lease from the plaintiff alone--Sayad Fatulla v. Bola Printed Judgements for 1884 p. 33; Jethu Jadhavji v. Ganpatrav Printed Judgments for 1884 p. 286. The Subordinate Judge relieved against the forfeiture for non-payment of rent by allowing the defendant to pay the five years' rent due at the date of the decree, with interests and costs, within three months. The District Judge, however, awarded possession of the land to the plaintiff, because the defendant's plea in his written statement amounted to a denial of the plaintiff's exclusive title--Jethu Jadhavji v. Ganpa...
Tag this Judgment!Rattonbai Vs. Chabildas Lalloobhoy and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom7
Scott, J.1. The plaintiff Rattonbai on the 5th April last brought an administration suit against the executors of her late husband, and on the 9th April obtained a rule nisi and an interim injunction against them. On the 2nd May the defendants' solicitors gave notice to the solicitor of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was a minor suing without a next friend, and the plaint must be struck off the file in consequence. The plaintiff's solicitor at once replied that if the plaintiff was really a minor, he would at once take steps to have her father appointed her next friend and the plaint and proceedings amended accordingly. On the 7th May inspection was given to the plaintiff's solicitor of the plaintiff's horoscope, and after that inspection the plaintiff's solicitor proposed that the plaint and proceedings should be amended by the insertion of the name of the father of the plaintiff as her next friend. Nothing was done by either party until the close of the May vacation; and on the 6th...
Tag this Judgment!Bai Devkore Vs. Sanmukh Ram
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-18-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom101
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. The suit in this case was brought by one Sanmukhram Narsidas against Bai Devkore, his, elder brother Kasandas Narsidass' widow, to eject her from the ground-floor of the family dwelling house, where she had lived during her husband's life-time and since his death in 1879. He based his claim on a deed of settlement made by his father in 1879, and failing that, on his general right of inheritance, his father having died in 1883. He offered her a separate house to live in, in q, different part of the town.2. The defendant denied all knowledge of the deed of settlement;, and rested her defence on two wills made by her father-in-law; in 1873 and 1879 respectively, and, failing them, on her right as ' a Hindu widow to live in the family dwelling-house during her life-time. She also pleaded limitation; hut no issue was raised, and. we may take it the plea was afterwards abandoned.3. The deed of settlement as well as the two wills were held proved by the Subordinate Judg...
Tag this Judgment!Pandarinath Bapuji Vs. Lilachand Hatibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom237
Birdwood, J.1. The consent decree made in this case provided that the defendant should pay the plaintiff Rs. 156 within one month, and that the plaintiff should execute a deed of sale to the defendant. The District Judge rightly held that the plaintiff could not have claimed the money, and could not, therefore, have made any application for execution till the end of the month. The decree in such a case must be held as speaking, not from the date on which it was made, but from the date on which the plaintiff could demand fulfilment--Narayan Chitko Juvekar v. Vithal Purshotam I.L.R. 12 Bom. 23 But even though that is so, the present application for execution West, we think, be held to be barred by limitation. It will only be within time if the last preceding application, dated the 22nd January, 1887, was an application, within the meaning of Clause (4) of Article 179 of Schedule II of Act XV of 1877, made in accordance with law to the Court for the execution, or to take some step in aid ...
Tag this Judgment!NizamudIn Gulam and ors. Vs. Abdul Gafur Valad MainudIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-11-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR13Bom264
Parsons, J.1. The plaintiffs sue as mutavallis, and also as next of kin, of the deceased Karimudin, to obtain possession of certain property which was purchased by the defendants in 1866 at a Court sale held in execution of a decree passed against Tahira one of the daughters of Karimudin. The grounds of the claim are that the property in question is wakf, and that Tahira had only a life interest therein. Two points, therefore, arise for consideration: first, whether the property is wakf, and, secondly whether the estate of Tahira therein was only a life estate. The facts are these. In 1838, Karimudin, who was the owner of the property, executed what he called a wakfnama. In it he says: 'My private properties, which are at this day under my management and in my enjoyment, I have made a wakf of on my wives and on my aulad and other persons.' He then names his two wives and the two daughters of each (whom apparently be means whenever he speaks of his aulad), and be describes the property ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›