Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Buchu Lall Vs. Tulsi Panday

Buchu Lall vs Tulsi Panday

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Feb 28, 1883
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/853084

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Bengal Act VIII of 1869, Section 102 - Practice--Appeal--Second Appeal. -

Key legal issue
Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Buchu Lall

Respondent

Tulsi Panday

Legal References

Reported In
(1883)ILR9Cal596

Excerpt

bengal act viii of 1869, section 102 - practice--appeal--second appeal. - richard garth, c.j.1. it seems to us that the view taken by the learned judges who referred this case is correct. prima facie in a suit of this kind/the appellant is entitled to a second appeal. the question is, whether that right is taken away by section 102 of beng. act viii of 1869? that section only applies where the amount sued for, or the value of the property claimed, does not exceed rs. 100.2. in this case there' is nothing to show that the value of the property claimed does not exceed rs. 100; and unless that fact does appear, either from the finding of the lower court, or elsewhere upon the proceedings, it seems to us that we have no right (more especially as we are only empowered here to deal with points of law) to draw any inference to that effect.we are, therefore, of opinion, that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; and a the division bench has already decided that the lower courts were wrong in decreeing the ejectment, we think that the judgment should be modified accordingly, and that the defendant should be allowed his costs of appeal in the courts, so far as they relate to that point.

Full Judgment

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. It seems to us that the view taken by the learned Judges who referred this case is correct. Prima facie in a suit of this kind/the appellant is entitled to a second appeal. The question is, whether that right is taken away by Section 102 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869? That section only applies where the amount sued for, or the value of the property claimed, does not exceed Rs. 100.

2. In this case there' is nothing to show that the value of the property claimed does not exceed Rs. 100; and unless that fact does appear, either from the finding of the lower Court, or elsewhere upon the proceedings, it seems to us that we have no right (more especially as we are only empowered here to deal with points of law) to draw any inference to that effect.We are, therefore, of opinion, that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; and a the Division Bench has already decided that the lower Courts were wrong in decreeing the ejectment, we think that the judgment should be modified accordingly, and that the defendant should be allowed his costs of appeal in the Courts, so far as they relate to that point.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial