Mumbai Court September 1888 Judgments
Peshotam Hormasji Dustoor Vs. Meherbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-25-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom302
Scott, J.1. The object of this suit is to test the validity of a Parsi infant marriage. The parties went through the ceremony of marriage in 1868, in the presence of their parents and according to the rites of their religion, when the plaintiff was seven years old and the defendant was six. Nineteen years afterwards the plaintiff files this suit, and prays for a declaration that the marriage was null, and never created the status of husband and wife. The defendant, on the other hand, submits that the marriage was valid, the ceremony binding, and that she is the plaintiff's lawful wife. The issues raised were (1) whether this Court had jurisdiction to try the suit; (2) whether the plaintiff's father gave his consent either at the time of the marriage or subsequently; (3) whether the plaintiff repudiated the marriage on his reaching the age of puberty and subsequently; (4) and generally whether the marriage was valid.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff, when an infant,...
Tag this Judgment!Geffert Vs. Ruckchand Mohla
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-24-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom178
Scott, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sues the defendant for defamation. He charges the defendant, who is the chairman of the Hinganghat Company, with having defamed him in Bombay by publishing in the Bombay Gazette a notice of his dismissal from the office of secretary and agent to the Hinganghat Company, together with notice that certain entries in the minute book of the company, for which he was responsible, are fraudulent. The defence to the present suit is that, as a fact, the plaintiff was rightfully dismissed from his office, and that the publication of the two notices complained of was necessary in the interests of the company.2. It. appears that, some time before the present suit was filed, the plaintiff had filed a suit against the Hingaoghat Company claiming damages for wrongful dismissal. This earlier suit was tiled in the Court of the Deputy Commissioner at Wardha, in the Central Provinces, the Court of the district in which Hinganghat is situated, and that suit is now pe...
Tag this Judgment!Munmohandas Jaikisondas Vs. Vizbai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-14-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom171
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. The question in this case arises upon the application of Section 295 of the Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882) to the following circumstances:2. Certain property of the late Hirji Dossa has been sold in execution of a decree; and the present claimants to share under the above section in the proceeds of the sale are the appellant, the decree-holder in Suit No. 8 of 1870, and the respondent Vizbai, who is admittedly the legal representative of Hirji Dosses estate and who claims as the assignee from the decree-holder Hurgovandas in Suit No. 657 of 1869 under an agreement dated the 9th November, 1886. (His Lordship read the agreement above set forth, and continued.) The agreement is virtually an adjustment of the decree. The effect of it, as a Whole, is that the decree-holder ceased to have any beneficial interest in the decree; in other words, the decree is satisfied as between the decree-holder and Vizbai and is kept alive nominally for the purpose of securing...
Tag this Judgment!Sayad Abdula Edrus Vs. Sayad ZaIn Sayad Hasan Edrus and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-13-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom555
Parsons, J.1. The plaintiff sues for a declaration that the office of sajjadanishin and khilafat held by the Edrus family has devolved on him, and not on his younger brother, the defendant No. 1, and that he alone is entitled, as mutavalli, to take possession ft and manage the whole wakf property, the value of which is stated to be over two lakhs of rupees. The basis of his claim is the fact that he is the eldest son. He says clearly in his plaint that according to the custom of the country, shareh (Musalman law), and family usage, and according to the deed of appointment given by his grandfather to his father, and by his father to him, the offices of sajjadanishin, khilafat and mutavalli devolved on him alone as the eldest son, and, therefore, that it is his sole right to take possession of and manage the shrines and the wakf property.2. So far as the claim is made to rest on a deed of appointment, we may at once dismiss it, for it is proved that that appointment was made at a time wh...
Tag this Judgment!Bhutia Dhondu Vs. Ambo and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom294
Charles Sargent, C.J.1. We think that the rajinama passed by Pos Patil assuming it to be proved, operated as a surrender or relinquishment, to use the language of Section 74 of the Land Revenue Act of 1879. No particular words are essential to make a good surrender. See Woodfall on Landlord and Tenant, p. 298. The language of this rajinama shows, we think, a clear intention to give up the right of cultivation which he and his father had enjoyed up to that time. The Judge seems to think that it was not acted on by the inamdar, because he took the rent for 1883 and 1884 from Ambo, and because Ambo remained in possession in 1884 and 1889; but the rent was, we may assume, what was due in December, 1883, after the monsoon, and by the rajinama itself the inamdar is authorized to receive it. The act that Ambo, a sub-tenant of the recognized occupant, remained in possession after the rajinama was passed, is no proof that it was not accepted by the inamdar.2. As to the plaintiff's right to sue ...
Tag this Judgment!Kasam Saheb Valad Sha Ahmed Saheb and anr. Vs. Maruti BIn Rambhaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-10-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom552
Birdwood, J.1. The applicants were dispossessed of certain land in execution of a decree made by the Mamlatdar in favour of the opponent and against Mahamad and Mohidin, and applied to the Mamlatdar to be restored to possession. The application, if made to an ordinary Civil Court, was one which could be made under Section 332 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Mamlatdar declined to make any order on the application, as it was of the nature of a miscellaneous proceeding. It is argued, on behalf of the applicants, that Section 328 and the following sections of the Civil Procedure Code are applicable to Mamlatdars' Courts, which have been held to be Civil Courts; and that if those sections are not applicable to Mamlatdar's Courts, the Mamlatdar ought, in the present case, to have given the applicants an opportunity of converting their application into a plant. We are unable to yield to either of these contentions. In Mahndoji Govind v. Sonu bin Davlata 9 Bom. H.C. R 249 it was held that ...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed BIn Shaik Essa Kaliffa and ors. Vs. Shaik Essa BIn Kaliffa and o ...
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom458
Chareles Sargent, C.J.1. This application raises the question, what is the construction to be given to Section 549 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882)? That section is somewhat general in its terms; and it is very desirable that, in applying it the Court should proceed on some definite general principles; otherwise litigants will be encouraged to make applications, under this section, in the great majority of cases.2. The respondents' application is twofold. I will deal first with that portion of it which has reference to the costs of the appeal. The rule observed in this Court is to require security to the extent of Rs. 500 for the respondent's costs of appeal. We are now asked to sanction further security to the extent of Rs. 7,000, so as to cover the respondents' estimated costs of the appeal. Wow, it is not the practice here to require security commensurate to the anticipated costs of this appeal. Rs. 500 is, speaking generally, the rule for all cases, although we know...
Tag this Judgment!Gangabai Vs. Anant and ors.
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-07-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom690
Parsons, J.1. The point which arises in this case is one which appears to have come before the Courts now for the first time. It relates to the validity of an adoption of a daughter by a Brahmin to place that daughter in the same legal position that his own natural daughter would have held. The plaintiff claims by virtue of the adoption to be entitled to the estate of the person who adopted her and to exclude the defendants, who are that person's next of kin, from the inheritance. The Dattaka Mimansa, Section 7, and the Sanskara Kaustubha are quoted to us as authorities in favour of the legality of the adoption. We do not, however, consider that they establish the proposition for which they are cited. The adoption of a daughter appears opposed to the very purpose and history of adoption. 'Males only need sons to relieve them from the debt due to ancestors'--Colebrook's Digest, Bk. V. T. 273, Comm. The adoption of a daughter is not warranted by any Smriti; it is supported only by some P...
Tag this Judgment!Toolseydas Ludha Vs. Premji Tricumdas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom61
Scott, J.1. This is a suit to set aside the release which the plaintiff gave to the defendant in March, 1882, of all right to any share in the property left by Ludha Callianji in 1868, in consideration of the immediate payment of Rs. 25,000.2. The plaintiff is the son of Ludha Callianj, by his third wife, and the defendant is the grandson through Ludha's first wife. The plaintiff came of age a month before he signed the release having been brought up by the first defendant's father, Tricumdas Ludha, and since 1673 by the defendant himself, who though of a second generation is much the plaintiff's senior in age. The plaintiff contends that the release should be declared void, because he signed it without full knowledge of his rights while he was under the defendant's influence, and without having taken in-dependant advice. He now claims to be entitled to one-half of the property left by Ludha Calianji in 1868. He says that the will, ostensibly made by Ludha just before death on the 19th...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Irappa
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-06-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR13Bom291
Birdwood and Parsons, JJ.1. The accused has been convicted of digging earth within a space of two cubits of an earthen boundary-mark, and sentenced to a fine of Re. 1. The digging of earth close around an earthen, boundary-mark for the purpose of repairing it is prohibited by Rule 101 of the Rules made by Government under Section 214(g) of the Land Revenue Code of 1879. That rule further provides that a space of two cubits in breadth all round each such mark is to be left untouched SO as to prevent injury to the mark from water lodging in the cavities from which the earth is taken for the repairs. For the breach, of this Rule a penalty is provided by Clause 3(a) of the Rule 111 of the Rules made under Section 215 of the Code. It is under this last section that the accused has been convicted. We are of opinion that the conviction and sentence are illegal, as Rule 101 is not such a rule as can legally be made under Section 214(g) of the Code. It is not a rule 'for the administration of a...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »