Mumbai Court August 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.
Amrita BIn Bapuji and anr. Vs. Naru BIn Gopalji Shamji and anr.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-13-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom489
Birdwood, J.1. It has been objected, in second appeal, that no appeal lay to the District Court from the decision of the Subordinate Judge in this case. This objection was not taken in the lower Appellate Court; but it can, nevertheless, be taken here--Shri Sidheshimr Pandit v. Shri Harihar Pandit I.L.R. 2 Bom. 155 . We think that the objection is valid. The plaintiffs are agriculturists, and sued to redeem a mortgage for an advance of Rs. 50, which, they said, had been satisfied from the profits of the property in the defendants' possession. The defendants denied the mortgage, and claimed the property as their own. But such denial would not alter the character or nature of the subject-matter of the suit. It continued, after the denial, in its original shape as far as the plaintiffs were concerned, 'nor is the complexion of it entirely changed because the defendants put forward certain grounds of defence which, if well founded,' must defeat the plaintiffs' right to redeem--Gobind Singh...
Khursedji Rustomji Colah Executor of Dossibai, Widow Vs. Pestonji Cowa ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-10-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom573
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. This reference arises out of a suit by an executor in the Small Cause Court to recover from the defendant two Government notes, of the nominal value of Rs. 2,000, standing in the name of the testatrix, alleging that the defendant had removed them from the testatrix's box during her illness. The defence set up was that the notes had been given by the testatrix to the defendant as a reward for past services. The Judge of the Small Cause Court says that the defendant's evidence on this point was very unsatisfactory, and that he could not rely on it. However, he held, Upon the whole of the evidence, that there was evidence of a gift of the notes to the defendant; but being of opinion, as it would seem, that he had not jurisdiction, to go into the question whether there had been an incomplete gift of the moneys represented by the notes, he held, on the authority of Barton v. Gainer 3 H. & N., 387 and Rummens v. Hare L.R., 1 Ex. Div., 169 that the defendant had the ri...
Padajirav Vs. Ramrav
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-09-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom160
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The litigation in this suit arises out of the rival claims of the parties to be the adopted son of one Bhavanjirav Raje Deshmukh, who died on the 1st September, 1865, the plaintiff claiming to have been adopted on the 1st July, 1866, by his youngest widow Bachabai acting under her husband's order and with the consent of Lalitabai, his senior widow, and. the defendant claiming to have been adopted on 12th August 1869, by his senior widow Lalitabai. The First Class Subordinate Judge found that the plaintiff's suit was barred by the Statute of Limitations and also by the fact of the plaintiff's having instituted a suit, No. 231 of 1878, without claiming any property therein as he has done in the present suit, and, lastly, that the plaintiff was not the true and rightful adopted son of the deceased Bhavanji Raje, and as such entitled to the property in dispute. The second ground upon which the Subordinate Judge based his conclusion was admitted to be not sustainable...
Meherali and ors. Vs. TajudIn and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-06-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom156
Charles Sergent, C.J.1. In Kali Das Mullick v. Kanhya Lal Pundit 11 I.A. . 232 : I.L.R. S.C. 11 Cal. 135 their Lordships of the Privy Council say: They 'see no reason why a gift or contract of sale of property, whether moveable or immoveable, if it is not of a nature which mates the giving effect to it contrary to public policy, should not operate to give' to the donee or purchaser a right to obtain possession,' and they add: 'This appears to be consistent with Hindu law.' The question here, however, is, whether it is consistent with Mahomedan law.2. In Mohinudin v. Manchershah I.L.R. 6 Bom. 650 the question arose and was decided in the negative, on the ground that by Mahomedan law a gift by a person not in possession is null and void. In Kali Das Mullick v. Kanhya Lal Pundit 11 I.A. 233 : I.L.R. S.C. 11 Cal. 135 the Privy Council point out that 'the Hindu texts, with one not very clear exception, relate to intended gifts which it is contemplated that the donor may take back until they...
Motiram Bhagubhai Vs. the Gordon Mills Limited in Liquidation
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR12Bom526
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The question which we have to determine is whether the letter, dated the 19th December, 1885, by the appellant to the liquidators of the Gordon Mills was a valid and sufficient notice within the provisions of the second clause of Section 204 of the Indian Companies Act VI of 1882.2. It is contended that this letter is insufficient, inasmuch as it only required the liquidators to purchase the interest of the dissentient shareholders in the company, and did not state the alternative course open to them under the section, viz., to abstain from carrying the special resolution into effect. The learned Judge, from whose decision this appeal is brought, was of opinion that the notice was defective and insufficient, and he based his decision upon the cases of In re Union Bank of Kingston-upon-Hull L.R., 13 Ch. Div., 808 and In re the Fleming Spinning and Weaving Company (Limited) in Liquidation I.L.R., 7 Bom., 494.3. In the case of In re Union Bank of Kingston-upon-Hull...
Chhaganlal Vs. Fazarali and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-02-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom154
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The question referred to us is not without difficulty, but we are disposed to adopt the ruling of the Calcutta High Court in In re Sunder Dass I.L.R. 8 Bom. 532 that the Court distributing the proceeds of execution under Section 295 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) should inquire into the bond, fides of the decree-holders if called in question and decide it in the same manner as all other questions that arise in execution. The party aggrieved will be entitled, under the last clause of Section 295, to bring a regular suit to compel the successful judgment-creditor in execution to refund....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›