Mumbai Court August 1905 Judgments
Hari Ganu Vs. Sakharam Balaji
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-22-1905
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR310
Russell, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs framed their claim as if they were the owners of the land in question and assert-ed that they had been in the habit of burning their dead in this particular land and that the defendants had obstructed them in so doing. The case at the trial showed an entirely different state of facts. It was proved that the defendants were owners of the land and that the plaintiffs had been granted license to burn dead bodies and that for that purpose they came there from another place in 1866. Exhibit 87, which has been handed to us, shows that the Government deprived the plaintiffs of the right of burning dead bodies upon the land in question and moreover it appears from another exhibit that it was not a user within the meaning of Section 2 of the Easements Act. Of course it is quite conceivable that they might have been able to prove a custom to burn their dead bodies-see Mercer v. Denne [1904] 2 Ch 534-where it was held that a custom for fishermen to spread...
Tag this Judgment!Hanmant Narsinha Vs. Govind Pandurang Kamat
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Aug-03-1905
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR283
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. Whatever may have been the intention of the parties, we are of opinion that, having regard to Section 92 of the Evidence Act, it is impossible to treat the transaction of 1892 as one for exchange. The two deeds profess to be deeds of conveyance, and the mere fact that they are mutual deeds of conveyance would not make the transaction an exchange for the purpose of attracting the consequence for which the plaintiffs contend. What would have been the result had the Transfer of Property Act been applicable, we need not discuss. But we think there is another ground on which the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed, and that is for money paid upon an existing consideration which afterwards failed.2. The case, we think, falls precisely within the ruling in Venkata Narasimhulu v. Peramma ILR (1894) Mad. 173 from which the learned Judges in Ardesir v. Vajesing ILR (1901) 25 Bom. 593 : 3 Bom. L.R. 26 do not profess to dissent; in fact the authority of Venkata Na...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›