Kolkata Court April 1878 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Dwarkanath Bysack and anr. Vs. Burroda Persaud Bysack
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1878
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal443
Richard Garth, C.J.1. Only two questions are raised in this appeal: first, whether certain bequests made by the testator are valid; and secondly, whether, if they are invalid, a residuary bequest which follows them, is invalid also.2. The clause of the will upon which the question arises, is as follows: 'I do direct my trustee to spend suitable sums at the annual sradhs or anniversaries of my father, mother, and grandfather, as well as of myself after my demise, for the performance of the ceremonies and the feeding of the Brahmins and the poor; to spend suitable sums for the annual contribution and gifts to the Brahmins, Pundits holding tolls [(or native schools) for the diffusion of Sanscrit learning in the country] at the time of the Doorga Poojah. To spend suitable sums for the perusal of Mohabharat and Pooran, and for the prayer to God during the month of Kartick. Should there be any surplus after the above expenditure, then I do hereby direct my trustee to spend the said surplus i...
Panchcowrie Mull and ors. Vs. Chumroolall and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal564
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The learned Judge in the Court below has dismissed the suit (without settling any issues, and without going into evidence), as we understand, upon four grounds,-1st.--That the plaintiffs do not show in what right they sue.2nd.--That the plaintiffs are not a corporation, and cannot therefore claim to In old property by succession.3rd.--That the Advocate-Gen oral is not a party to the suit.4th.--That no leave of the Court to bring the suit has been obtained under Section IB of Act XX of 1863.2. The right in which the plaintiff's sue is, in our opinion, sufficiently shown. They describe themselves as the persons forming for the time being the Tairo Pantee Anungo Punch Brothron, and as such they claim to have, on behalf of themselves and others, the general management and control of the religious endowments belonging to the Degumbery Soot of Jains. They also show that the bequests, which they seek to enforce are bequests which the testator directed to be applied under...
Harasatoollah and ors. Vs. Brojonath Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1878
Reported in: (1878)ILR3Cal730
Markby, J.1. The Subordinate Judge seems to have correctly explained the present state of the law. If the purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree be resisted or obstructed when being put in possession by the Court, as provided for by Section 318 or Section 319 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1877,[1] the Court can now act only under Section 334 or Section 335.2. Section 318 provides for the giving of what is usually termed khas possession to an execution-purchaser, and the Court is empowered to 'order delivery to he made by putting the purchaser or any person whom he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf in possession of the property, and, if need be, by removing any person who refuses to vacate the same.' If resistance or obstruction is made by the judgment-debtor or any one on his behalf, the provisions of chapter xix of the Code relating to resistance or obstruction to a decree-holder are applicable to Section 334. If, on the other hand, the property sold was not in t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›