Mumbai Court April 1916 Judgments
Achratlal Jekisondas Vs. Chimanlal Parbhudas
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-14-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom129; (1916)18BOMLR582
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question in this appeal is whether the father who has never had the care or custody of his infant child can successfully call upon the Court by an application under the Guardians and Wards Act for an order upon the person in whose custody the infant is to hand him over. The learned Joint Judge holds that the father has two courses only open to him, viz., to file a regular suit for the custody of his boy, or apply to the High Court for an order in the nature of Habeas Corpus under Section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In regard to the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 491 the learned Judge is in error, for such an application could only be made in a case falling within the limits of the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court, whereas this is an Ahmedabad case. That a suit can be filed for the custody of the boy may be conceded on the authority of two decisions in this Court, one being Sharifa v. Munekhan I.L.R. (1901) Bom 574, 3 Bom. L.R. 167 and...
Tag this Judgment!Arjun Ramji Mhankal Vs. Ramabai Raoji Vithoba
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-12-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom107; (1916)18BOMLR579
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.1. The question is whether where a minor acquired a cause of action to sue for possession of property and died after majority but before the expiry of three years from the date of the cessation of his disability of minority, his personal representative can, although twelve years have expired since the cause of action accrued, institute a suit on the same cause of action at any time within the three years' period which had already commenced in the life-time of the deceased. In our opinion the personal representative can maintain such a suit. In such a suit the deceased must be included in the term 'plaintiff' for the purpose of Article 142 for according to Section 3 of the Limitation Act ' plaintiff' includes any person from or through whom the plaintiff derives his right to sue.2. The title of the quondam minor had not been extinguished by twelve years of dispossession because on attaining majority he was entitled to a further period of three years within which to...
Tag this Judgment!Pandurang Laxman Uphade Vs. Govinda Dada Uphade
Court: Mumbai
Decided on: Apr-05-1916
Reported in: AIR1916Bom57; (1916)18BOMLR571
Batchelor, J.1. The question raised in this application is one of some difficulty and arises under Order XXI, Rule 89 of the present Code. The circumstances under which it arises are these :-In execution of a decree the judgment-debtor's property was sold by auction and was purchased by the present applicant for a sum of Rs. 166 Thereafter, and before P the auction sale was confirmed, the judgment-debtor for a sum of Rs. 500 privately sold the property to one Gangaram, a stranger. Then within thirty days of the auction sale the B judgment-debtor applied under Order XXI, Rule 89 to set aside the sale. The trial Court dismissed his application, but the District Court has allowed it, and from the District Court's order this application is brought by the auction purchaser.2. The question is, whether it is open to the judgment-debtor to make this application under Order XXI, Rule 89 after he has by private sale transferred or attempted to transfer the property to a third party, such private...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›