Kolkata Court December 1875 Judgments
In the Goods Of: Roymoney Dossee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal151
Phear, J.1. Ordered probate to be granted....
Tag this Judgment!Mahabeer Singh and ors. Vs. Juneswar Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-16-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal164
M.E. Smith, J.1. After the discussion which has taken place at the bar, there remain only two questions to be decided. The first is purely a question of fact. * * *2. The other question arises upon the period of limitation which is applicable to this case. As already observed, the instrument contains two distinct things: the obligation to pay the money, which binds the maker of it only, and the mortgage of the land; and the plaint in the present suit is properly framed upon the instrument in that aspect. It seeks to charge the first defendant, the maker of the bond, Ritbhunjun Singh personally, and it also claims to recover the amount of the principal and interest by the sale of the mouzahs (naming them), which were the hypothecated property included in the mortgage. It is contended for the appellant that the limitation contained in Clause 16, Section 1 of the Act XIV of 1859 is the proper limitation to apply to the case. That is a sweeping clause, which provides thus: 'that to all sui...
Tag this Judgment!Gabriel Vs. Mordakai and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-13-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal148
Phear, J.1. I think I may say the will was revoked by the second marriage; and this will dispose of the present petition....
Tag this Judgment!Mothoormohun Roy Vs. Soorendro NaraIn Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal109
Macpherson, J.1. The plea of minority having been disposed of by the decision of the Bull Bench, it remains for us to consider what amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Phear, J., being of opinion that, even supposing the defedant to have attained the age of majority at sixteen, the bargain was most unconscionable and unfair, and one which no Court of Equity ought to enforce, declared that the plaintiff could in no event get a decree for more than the sum actually paid by him to the defendant, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum up to the date of filing the plaint. Disallowing the three sums of Rs. 450 retained for interest, Rs. 100 paid to Baboo Romanath Law, the Attorney, for having in his character of solicitor for the plaintiff, advised the plaintiff that the defendant was legally of age, and Rs. 60 for office or amlah expenses, Phear, J., declared that the balance (which would be Rs. 4,390) was the amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.2. For the app...
Tag this Judgment!Mudhoo Mutty Goopta and anr. Vs. Dyebukee Nundun Sen and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1875
Reported in: (1876)ILR1Cal123
Macpherson, J.1. We think that in this case the Munsif was right in holding that the proceedings throughout have been without jurisdiction, because the suit is of a class cognizable by the Small Cause Court of Rampore Beauleah, and is therefore one which, under Section 12, Act XI of 1865, could not be heard or 'determined in any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction' of that Small Cause Court.2. The suit is for a balance claimed to be due on account of rents of the plaintiffs' zemindaris collected by the father of the defendants. It is a suit in which money is claimed as due on a contract within the meaning of Section 6 of Act XI of 1865; and therefore is a suit cognizable by the Small Cause Court, as the amount claimed did not exceed Rs. 500; and it is none the less cognizable by the Small Cause Court, because it may have been necessary to go into the accounts of both parties to see whether the amount claimed is really due or not. Section 6 conter...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›