Kolkata Court December 1879 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.
Gyamonee Vs. Radha Romon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal592
Morris, J.1. The preliminary objection taken, that no appeal lies against the order of the Subordinate Judge in this case, must prevail. Clearly, since a decree-holder under the Act includes any person to whom a decree is transferred, and by inference any person to whom a share in a decree is transferred, the question raised is a question as between two co-decree-holders. This Court is not called upon now to determine whether Radha Romon was brought rightly or wrongly on the record as a party, and allowed to take out execution. It must be taken that he has been rightly allowed. This then being so, we consider that the provision of Clause (c) Section 244, Act X of 1877, does not apply to such a case as this. There is no question arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives. This is practically a difference only between one decree-holder and another decree-holder.2. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Koomud Chunder Dass Vs. Chunder Kant Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal498
Wilson, J.1. I will not trouble you, Mr. Branson. I think Mr. Phillips is right in saying that this is a contract to refer to arbitration, and that he is right in saying that the present suit is brought in respect of the subject-matter which the parties had agreed to refer to arbitration. But I think that before Section 21 of the Specific Relief Act can be relied upon, it must be shown that the plaintiff had refused to refer to arbitration. I do not think that the filing of the plaint is such a refusal. I, therefore, hold that nothing has been shown under the section to bar the present suit....
Kally Churn Shaw and anr. Vs. Dukhee Bibee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal692
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiffs, claiming to be heirs of one Doorga Shaw, and asking to recover, as against the defendant (Dukhee Bibee), the property which they allege formed part of the estate of Doorga Shaw, and for accounts. They claim as sons of Doorga Shaw, by what they call a sagai marriage.2. The first question to consider is, whether, among the caste to which the plaintiffs' mother belongs, a marriage such as that which has taken place is a valid marriage so as to make the children legitimate.3. The sagai marriage is not unknown. It has been before the Court on a former occasion. A sagai marriage, very similar to the one in this case, came before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bissuram Koiree v. The Empress (3 C.L.R., 410), and the marriage was held to be a good marriage so far as to render a person who had intercourse with a woman so married liable for adultery.4. The evidence shows that the sagai marriage is common among the Hulwaee caste...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›