Mumbai Court July 1906 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.
Kaji Inus Kaji Bapu Vs. Kaji Inus Kajiba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR576
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. We are of opinion that the Courts rightly decided that the applicant was not entitled to a sale, for, we think, that Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act is a bar.2. But that section is no bar to an attachment.3. We therefore think that the appellant before us is entitled to have the property attached.4. But this prayer for attachment was not put forward until the ingenuity of Mr. Bodas in this Court discovered this point in his favour, so we cannot give him any costs.5. We make no order as to costs of this appeal except that each party will bear his own costs; but the applicant must pay the costs of both the Courts below.6. We send back the case to the first Court in order that an order for attachment may be made....
Navalbai Fulchand Vs. Sivubai Genu Korpe
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-13-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR761
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J. 1. The only question in this suit is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to show that a transaction is not an out-and-out sale.2. The document evidencing the transaction is in form an absolute sale, and the case therefore falls within Section 92 of the Evidence Act, whereby it is provided, subject to certain provisos, that 'when the terras of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document have been proved according to the last section, no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from its terms.'3. This section has been the subject of judicial determination in Balkishen Das v. Legge ILR (1899) All. 149.4. But by the first proviso contained in the section, it is enacted that 'any fact may be proved whic...
Abdeali Gulamhusen Vs. Yusufali Alibhai
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-12-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR570
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. This is an application to us under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the applicant takes exception to a refusal on the part of the Subordinate Judge to file an award which had been presented to the Court for filing under Section 525 of the Code of Civil Procedure.2. The first objection taken to this application is that the proper mode of proceeding is appeal and not under Section 622.3. It is clear that there is a long established course of practice in accordance with which these matters come before the Court under Section 622.4. We are bound by that practice and though it may be open to criticis.m, we do not think that this is a case where we should refer the matter to a Pull Bench to see whether we can depart from that practice.5. Accordingly, we will deal with the matter under 622.6. Now we come to the merits. On the application being heard by the Subordinate Judge, issues were framed in these terms: -(1). Cannot the suit be maint...
Gangabai Vs. Shridhar Annaji Kulkarni
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-11-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR642
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. The applicant complains under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code that her petition to sue as a pauper was wrongly rejected and that the lower Court exercised jurisdiction illegally.2. The facts on which the lower Court proceeded were these : The Court-fee is stated to be Rs. 1,775, and the Court held that the applicant had property of the value of Rs. 1,600, and on those facts and those facts alone, it determined that the applicant was not a pauper.3. But that is clearly erroneous. Section 401, Civil Procedure Code, shows that a person is a pauper when he is not possessed of sufficient means to enable him to pay the fees prescribed by law for the plaint.4. It is obvious that the possession of Rs. 1,600, even if it can properly be taken into account, would not enable the applicant to pay the Rs. 1775, which was the fee prescribed by the law for the plaint.5. It was suggested however that we cannot interfere as there is no case within the meaning o...
Narayan Sadashiv Vs. Nimba Hari Shimpi
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Jul-05-1906
Reported in: (1906)8BOMLR547
Lawrence Jenkins, K.C.I.E., C.J.1. Having regard to the decision in Mackintosh v. Gill (1873) 12 B.L.R. 37 and Anderson v. Kalagarla ILR (1885) 12 Cal 339 and in particular to what is said at pages 342 and 347 of the latter case, we think it clear that the defendant has, in Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Code a complete answer to the plaintiff's claim.2. The rule must, therefore, be made absolute with costs, and the suit will be dismissed with costs throughout....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›