Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal142
Phear, J.1. ordered that the appeal should be struck off the file....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal360
Mitter, J.1. This is a suit for the reversal of a patni sale under Regulation VIII of 1819. The claim is based upon two grounds, viz., (1) that there was no arrear of rent due from the plaintiff on the day of the sale, the same having been paid to the zemindar two days before the day of sale, and (2) that the notification of sale was not duly published according to Section 8 of Regulation VIII of 1819.2. The lower Court has dismissed the suit. Upon the first point, the lower Court has found that the allegation of payment of rent two days before the day of sale is not true, and that the dakhila produced to establish that payment is not genuine. As regards the publication of the notice of sale, what the lower Court finds is this, that it was first stuck up in the cutcherry of the ijaradar (the mehal having been let out in ijara by the patnidar), but the gomasta of the ijaradar having refused to grant a receipt of the service of the notice to the peon who took it, it was taken down and su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom118
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. We must uphold the finding of the Ecclesiastical Registrar. The annuity, although not payable until October 1877, is an item of property capable of present valuation. The provision in Section 12 of Act XVIII of 1869, that the whole amount secured for the payment of an annuity shall be taken to be ten times the annual payment, is in that same section expressly stated to be made for the purposes of that Act, and we do not see how we can extend it. It also seems to us that the provisions of Chapter III of Act VII of 1870 must be limited to suits, and cannot be held to apply to probates. The fee payable in respect of the probate of a will is fixed by Act VII of 1870, Schedule I, Clause 11, at 2 per cent, on the value of the property, and we consider that the value of this annuity for the purpose of determining the amount of probate fees must be taken to be the market value. In the present case, the annuity being mortgaged, the only interest in it passing under the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal150
Phear, J.1. I have read this Section (258) as if there were a comma after the words 'fourteen clear days,' and the word 'respectively' after 'death:' and I understand 'letters of administration' not to include the case of letters of administration with the will annexed. The distinction intended by the Legistature appers to me to be this: where a will is proved, the grant may be make on the lapse of seven clear days, but where there is no will, not until after the expiration of fourteen clear days. The application may be granted....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom190
Michael Westropp, C.J.1. Agreement paper, Tuesday the 12th of the month of Waisakh Shoodh, the Shak 1796, the year being called Bhav (28th April 1874), on that day to Valaji Esaji and brother, Boharas, residing at Bohara Lane in Camp, Sadar Lane, Bazaar, Poona. From Mrs. J. Thomas, Madam, residing in Lascar Pet, Staff Poona. I give this agreement paper in writing as follows: There is my tiled bungalow, No. 2436, situated at East Street Lane. The agreement for the sale thereof to you by me for Rs. 4,300, four thousand three hundred, was to be made this day, but my creditor Balkrishna Sayapa has gone to Bombay. On his return after about (20) twenty days I will make and deliver a deed of sale in accordance with what is written above. Should I not make and deliver the deed of sale within that time, or on the return of the said person. I will make good whatever loss you may sustain. And Rs. (100) one hundred, which you have now paid as earnest, will be (considered) as forfeited if you do no...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal179
Phear, J.1. The Court intimates it has considered the matter, and refers to Wright v. Pitt L.R. 3 Ch. App. 809 and states it is clear the applicant connot cross-examine upon the affidavit but can only show that it is not an honest affidavit. The omitted document is sufficiently mentioned and described in the written inspection, if inspection is needed. Summons dismissed. Costs to be costs in the cause. The report of Noel v. Noel 9 Jur. N.S. 589 : S.C. 1 De Gex J.S. v. Pitt L.R. 3 Ch. App. 809....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1877)ILR1Bom121
Nanabhai Haridas, J.1. This is a reference made to us by the Judge of the Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad under Section 22 of Act 'XI of 1865. The question he has referred for our opinion is, 'whether or not a wife, who is separated from her husband, is liable for debt contracted by her. '2. He has not informed us as to the circumstances under which, or as to the purpose for which, the debt was contracted: and the only facts stated to us are that it was contracted jointly by the two defendants, brother and sister, the latter being a married woman living separate from her husband; that 'the defendants are of the Rajput caste and are labourers by calling'; and that, in contracting the debt, the female had acted without her husband's consent. There; is not any statement that the defendant Hetta has been so ill-treated by her husband or his second wife as to warrant Hetta in leaving him, or to create a liability on his part to pay debts contracted by her for necessaries. The mere circum...
Tag this Judgment!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 : Kolkata
Reported in : (1876)ILR1Cal407
Kemp, J.1. In the case alluded to of Odoit Roy v. Radha Pandey 7 W.R. 72 Norman and Seton Karr, JJ. held that a suit would not lie between joint owners of undivided estates for damages sustained by the whole estate in consequence of the default of one or more of the co-proprietors in paying their shares of the Government revenue. As already observed, this case followed a decision of the Sudder Court of 1857 in the case of Gungapersaud Sahee v. Madhopersaud Sahee 13 S.D.A. 1244. We think that the rule laid down in those decisions is a proper one; and further we find that, under the provisions of Act XI of 1859, Section 40,[1] the plaintiff could have protected his interests by having his mokurrari right registered. He, also under the said Act, could have paid in the Government revenue due on account of the shares of his co-proprietors in the mokurrari, and thus saved the estate from sale. We find, on turning to the kyefeut of the collectorate amlah, which was called for by the Collector...
Tag this Judgment!