Kolkata Court April 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.
Bajendro Lall Gossami Vs. Shama Churn Lahori and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal188
Jackson, J.1. The present suit was brought by Nandu Lall Gossami to recover joint possession, as before, of a portion of land within the town of Serampore, by setting aside the defendants' allegation of possession and by demolition of a structure called a nowbutkhana raised by the defendants on the land.2. The plaintiff, it seems, was entitled to an undivided eight-anna share of this land, the other eight annas belonging partly to the defendants and partly to one Gopal Chunder Gossami.It appears that at the time of the Doorga Poojah in 1876, the defendant Shama Churn had erected upon this joint piece of land the nowbutkhana in question which, as the Judge says, was intended for the accommodation during the festival of a band of musicians. The plaintiff objected to this erection, and thereupon a dispute arose, which came under the cognizance of the Joint Magistrate of Serampore under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Joint Magistrate made an order that two cottas, o...
Nanack Chand and anr. Vs. Teluckdye Koer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal265
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case both the plaintiffs and the defendants appear to have taken mortgage-bonds from the same person, pledging the same property on the same day. Both subsequently obtained decrees upon those bonds against the mortgagor.2. The defendants, it is found by the Court below, got their decree first, and under that decree they bought the right, title, and interest of the mortgagor in the mortgaged property, and obtained possession of it.3. The plaintiffs afterwards, under their decree put up for sale and bought the right, title, and interest of the mortgagor; and they now bring this suit for the purpose of recovering the possession of the property from the defendants.4. This suit being, therefore, only for possession, on the strength of that purchase, the question is, whether the plaintiffs can prove a better right to such possession than the defendants.5. The Subordinate Judge has decided that the defendants' right is preferable, because their purchase of the mo...
Wahidoonnissa and ors. Vs. Roy Mohabeer Pershad Sahoo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal128
Broughton, J.1. Roy Baboo Mohabeer Pershad Sahoo, the decree-holder in this case, obtained a decree against Mahomed Akran and against Farzund Ally, who was Mahomed Akran's surety. Mahomed Akran was made primarily liable under the decree, and Farzund Ally was made liable in the second instance. The decree was executed by the attachment and subsequent conversion into money of certain indigo and an indigo factory belonging to Mahomed Akran.2. Mahomed Nawab had a mortgage on this factory and on the indigo.3. The attachment in execution was made on the 15th of August 1875.4. The date of Mahomed Nawab's mortgage was the 21st of May 1875; it was in the form of a bond payable in two instalments, the first of which was due on the 8th of May 1876, and the second on the 28th of April 1877. The factory and all the indigo which might grow and be manufactured were pledged by the bond.5. Mahomed Nawab put in an objection to the sale of the factory and the indigo under the decree, and it was ordered t...
The Empress Vs. Irad Ally, Accused
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-03-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal869
Ainslie, J.1. We think the Deputy Magistrate was wrong to question the sanction given by the Magistrate. It was an order made by a superior Court, purporting to be made under a particular provision of law. Whether it was rightly or wrongly made was not for the subordinate Court to enquire into. The Deputy Magistrate was not sitting as a Court of appeal or revision to examine the mode in which the Magistrate of the district had dealt with the case in which he had sanctioned a prosecution under Section 211 of the Penal Code. He was bound to accept the sanction as valid, and leave the accused to question it before a competent Court, if so advised.2. We cancel the order of the Deputy Magistrate, and direct him to try the accused on the charges before him....
Torit Bhoosun Bonnerjee Vs. Taraprosonno Bonnerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1879
Reported in: (1879)ILR4Cal756
Pontifex, J.1. [following the opinion of Phear, J., in Cally Churn Mullick v. Janova Dossee (1 Ind. Jur., N.S., 284), to the effect that in such a case as this the widows are entitled to share with their sons], ordered the plaint to be amended by adding the widows as parties.2. Attorney for the Plaintiff: Shamaldhone Dutt. Attorney for the Defendants: Mohendronauth Bonnerjee....
Gouri Persad Bias Vs. NaraIn Babu
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-02-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal21
Garth, C.J.1. We are satisfied that the case comes under Article 65, and not under Article 75, and we are ready to hear the appellant on the merits. (The case was then heard, and a decision on the merits given in favour of the plaintiff, respondent)....
Radha Purshad Singh Vs. Paluckdhary Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal50
Garth, C.J.1. The order, which is the subject of this appeal, was made in the course of certain execution proceedings, which have been going on between these parties since the year 1866. In those proceedings it was found by the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad that a certain sum for mesne profits was due to the plaintiffs, and on the 26th of June 1878 an application was made to the same Judge by the plaintiffs, that the rights and interests of the judgment-debtors in certain property should be sold to satisfy the sum so found to be due. The objections made to this application were two-fold--1st, that the execution proceedings had been carried on by the Subordinate Judge of Shahabad entirely without jurisdiction, and that consequently he had no power to grant the application; and 2ndly, that the application was barred by limitation under Article 179 of Act XV of 1877. The Subordinate Judge considered that, as an application had been made to the Shahabad Court in furtherance of the executio...
Abdool Hakim and ors. Vs. Doorga Proshad Banerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal4
Birch, J.1. The plaint sets forth (and for the purposes of this appeal we must assume that what is therein stated is true) that plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 were the patnidars of lot Hatpara; and that they granted a 'khai khalasee ijara' of their patni to the defendant Doorga Proshad from 1870 to 1874, the conditions of the said lease being, that if in consequence of any default to pay the zemindar's rent on the part of the defendant, the taluk was sold by the Collector for its arrears, the defendant should be liable to the plaintiffs and their heirs for damages for the loss incurred by them by the sale of their patni taluk. That such being the condition, the defendant in breach thereof allowed the tenure to fall into arrears, and the patni was put up to auction and sold by the Collector on the 14th May 1874 for the small sum of Rs. 5,900, far below its value.2. Estimating their profits at Rs. 1,187-7-4-1 per annum, and valuing the property at sixteen years' purchase, the plaintiffs, after ...
Sreenath Roy Vs. Cally Doss Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal82
Pontifex, J.1. (after stating the facts of the case as above, continued): When the plaint was presented to me for admission, finding that all the property in the agreement was out of the jurisdiction, and seeing also that the plaintiff was described as of Vogyakkool in the district of Dacca, merchant and banker, carrying on business at Durmahatta in Calcutta, and that the defendant is described of Panchthopy in the Zilla of Beerbhoom, outside of Calcutta, but who at the time, &c.;, I thought it right to admit the plaint subject to any objection as to jurisdiction. At the time of admitting the plaint the plaintiff obtained an order that the defendant should file a written statement. Mr. Bonnerjee for the plaintiff has not asked at the hearing for any decree with respect to the properties in the mofussil, or for any order for specific performance of the agreement, but he has limited himself to ask for the receipt of Rs. 4,000 with interest at the rate specified in the agreement from the ...
Rukhinee Bullubh Vs. Brojonath Sircar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-01-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal308
Jackson, J.1. The facts of this case are, that Ranee Hur Soondury brought a suit against Brojonath Sircar and others, Brojonath having been, as he admits himself, her agent for twelve years, and having the entire management of her property, she alleged that he had not accounted for the monies, which came into his hand as such agent, and sued him for an account.2. The suit was first thrown out on the ground of limitation, but on appeal to this Court, that decision was set aside, and the case went back for trial on the merits. After trial, it was again dismissed, and the Ranee appealed to this Court. It seems that she was remiss in the prosecution of the appeal, and, indeed, has since died we understand; and the defendant, while the proceedings were in suspense, proceeded to execute the decree in his favour by which the suit had been dismissed, and he was entitled to costs. These costs, it seems amounted to about Rs. 900. He was allowed to execute, and in execution, a mehal belonging to ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›