Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom125
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. This is a suit upon a promissory note dated the 2nd April 1868. The note, among other things, stipulates that the principal amount, with interest at 12 per cent. per annum, is to be repaid by half-yearly instalments of Rs. 150 each, and that, in the event of any one of those instalments not being punctually paid, the whole amount is to become payable at once.2. The first instalment accordingly fell due on the 2nd October 1868, when it was not paid, and this suit was instituted on the 19th October 1871. The Subordinate Judge and the District Judge in appeal have both held it barred by the law of limitation; and the only question, therefore, which we have to determine now is, is it so barred3. The law of limitation applicable to this case is Act XIV of 1859, of which Clause X, Section 1, provides as follows:To suits brought to recover money lent or interest, or for the breach of any contract in which there is a written engagement or contract, and in which such enga...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom147
West, J.1. Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that 'in the case of offences which may lawfully be compounded, injured persons may compound the offence out of Court or in Court with the permission of the Court,' and that 'such withdrawal from the prosecution shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused person.' The case before us is one in which an accusation of voluntarily causing grievous hurt has been compounded with the permission of the Court; and the question is, whether this is a case of an offence 'which may lawfully be compounded. '2. The remedies provided by the law for wrongs which it recognizes as affording a proper ground for the exercise of the State's coercive power, may be classed generally as criminal and civil. The latter apply properly to wrongs not regarded as so flagrant and so dangerous to society at large as to call for the spontaneous interference of the State. The general well-being of the community is sufficiently protected by the exerci...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom159
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. It is not alleged on behalf of the respondent that there is a substantial error in the decree of the Appellate Court. If there be such an error occasioned by the fault of the officer in drawing up the decree, the proper remedy, after the decree has been sealed, is review. But it is said that by comparing that decree with the notes of the Deputy Registrar, or with an alleged copy of, or extract from, the notes of Sir R. Couch, we shall perceive that the decree means something more than it now appears to us to do. That something more, however, is, in fact, a most important variation from the decree now before us. We think we cannot look at the notes of the Deputy Registrar, or those said but not proved to have been taken from the book of Sir R. Couch for the purpose of construing the decree of the Appellate Court. That decree should be construed as it stands, without any reference to those notes. We do not say that we might not refer to such notes on a motion to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom592
Kemball, J.1. The plaintiff brought this suit to recover possession of 4,800 bighorn of land, forming the Kolhati Bawa's Inam in the village of Shirasgam, together with mesne profits including certain haks acquired from the Pant Sachiv. It appears from the Judge's judgment that at one time the Peishwa, Scindia, and Pant Sachiv, all possessed certain rights in this land, as also, presumably, in all the land of the village. The Peishwa's rights came to the British Government after the conquest of the Deccan, while those of the Pant Sachiv were made over to the plaintiff's family. With regard, however, to Scindia's rights, it appears that in 1852-53 a dispute arose between Scindia's Government and the plaintiff's family. The agent for His Highness Scindia applied to the Collector of the district for assistance to levy the full assessment on the land, contending that the case set up, that Scindia's rights had been made over to plaintiff's family, was false; but as the assessment had alread...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom197
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The object of the first defendant (appellant) in giving the instrument Exhibit 17 in evidence is to show that Kazi Muhammad's mortgage lien on the land has been extinguished, and was so previously to the alleged transfer or assignment of that lien to the plaintiff; and if the document be genuine and admissible in evidence, it would, no doubt, be efficacious for that purpose, and a complete defence to this suit, which is maintainable only on the hypothesis that the mortgage to Kazi Muhammad is a still existing and unsatisfied security.2. We deem it unnecessary to enter upon the question of the sufficiency of the stamp, inasmuch as we think, whether we look to Act XX of 1866 or Act VIII of 1871, that the non-registration of Exhibit 17 renders it inadmissible for the purpose for which it is sought to be given in evidence in this suit.3. Act XX of 1866, Section 17, requires that the following instruments be registered:Clause 1. Instruments of gift of immoveable pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom164
Melvill, J.1. In this case the plaintiff asks that his wife, the first defendant, may be compelled to return to him, and that the second defendant, in whose house she has been living and who has opposed her return, may be ordered to deliver her up.2. It has been faintly argued at the bar that a suit for the restitution of conjugal rights will not lie in our Courts, or, at all events, that a decree ordering such restitution cannot be enforced; and, in support of this argument we have been referred to a judgment of Mr. Justice Markby, reported 14 Ben. L.R., 298. That judgment does not deny, and the decision of the Privy Council in Moonshee. Buzloor Ruheem v. Shumsoonissa Begum 11 Moo I.A., 551 conclusively establishes that such a suit may be maintained. The question of the mode of enforcing the Court's decree is at present premature, and we only allude to it as affecting the question of the admissibility of the suit. If it were admitted that a Court could not enforce its decree, that wou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom175
1. The Court thinks that the Subordinate Judge, and not the karkun, Keshav, must be regarded as the complainant in the proceedings before the Magistrate. The Subordinate Judge acted judicially, and, on that ground, would not be subject to the penalty provided in Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The karkun, if he made a false report to the Subordinate Judge, or gave false evidence before the Magistrate, is punishable otherwise; but, not being the complainant, he also is not liable to have the payment of compensation awarded against him under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code.2. The Court reverses the order of the Magistrate, which directed that Keshav Lakshman should pay Rs. 5 to Aba valad Krishna as compensation....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom177
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. The subject matter of this suit consists of Government promissory notes and money in the hands of the defendants which in the lifetime of Gokuldas Vithaldas belonged to him. He died at Porebunder, without issue, in June 1873. Parvati, the plaintiff, as his alleged heir, sues to recover the property in question. The defendants rely upon a will, alleged to have been made at Porebunder by Sakerbai, the widow of Gokuldas Vithaldas, on the 24th of August 1873. Sakerbai died on the 2nd of September 1873. She appears to have become blind some time previously to the death of her husband. One of the points relied upon on behalf of the plaintiff Parvati, before us at the hearing of the appeal, was that Sakerbai's blindness disqualified her for inheriting from her husband, and, therefore, that her will, even if genuine, could not affect the property in dispute. Mr. Justice Bayley, having decided in favour of the plaintiff Parvati upon another ground, did not give any opin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom203
Melvill, J.1. 'Toda-Gras' haks are thus described by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Maharana Fatesangji v. Desai Kallianrayaji (10 Bom. H.C. Rep. 281): 'It is sufficient to state that these annual payments, though originally exacted by the Grasias from the village communities in certain territories in the west of India by violence and wrong, and in the nature of blackmail, had, when those territories Jell under British rule, acquired by long usage a quasi-legal character as customary annual payments; and that as such they were recognized by the British Government, which took upon itself the payment of such of them as were previously payable by villages paying revenue. The Assistant Judge has held that payments of this description fall within the definition of 'a grant of money or land revenue' in Act XXIII of 1871. We are not prepared to say that he is wrong. In opposition to this view it has been contended that the purpose of Act XXIII of 1871 is simply 'to keep the di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom132
Green, J.1. Though the plaint, as originally framed, does (amongst other things) allege that the passing of resolutions reflecting on the character of private individuals is ultra vires the defendants as Trustees of the Port of Bombay, yet the scope and gist of the case there made is, that the defendants had by their said resolutions defamed the plaintiff, though such defamatory matter is not alleged to have been as yet published, and the relief sought is for damages, and in the meantime and till the hearing for an injunction against publishing such resolutions, and in particular transmitting the same to the local Government. On the same day as the original plaint was filed, viz., the 2nd instant, a rule was granted calling on the defendants to show cause why the president or presidents of the meetings of the 10th and 17th February, in the plaint mentioned, should not be restrained by injunction from signing the resolutions in question, or either of them, and why the said defendants, t...
Tag this Judgment!