Kolkata Court May 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.
Nundo Kishore Lall Vs. Musst. Ramsookhee Kooer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal215
Mitter, J.1. This suit is brought for the recovery of money due under a registered bond, dated the 3rd February 1868, executed by the husband of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The stipulated date of repayment was the 25th May 1869. The present suit was brought on the 21st November 1876. The principal objection taken by the defendant is, that the claim is barred by limitation, and it is apparently so barred, because the suit has not been brought within six years from the 25th May 1869. But the plaintiff's contention in the Courts below was, that the claim was not barred under the provisions of Section 20 of Act IX of 1871, which governs the present suit.2. It has been alleged that, in the year 1875, there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant's husband to pay off the debt due under this bond, by the sale to the creditor of certain property belonging to the debtor, and that the terms of this agreement were reduced to writing, and a kobala was executed by the...
Paddo Kumaree Debee and anr. Vs. Juggut Kishore Acharjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal615
Mitter, J.1. The facts which are necessary to be stated to elucidate the points taken before us in this appeal, and the reasons of our decisions upon them, are as follow:2. The property claimed in this suit is admitted to have been held and owned at one time by Gour Kishore, father of Bhowani Kishore and husband of Chundraboli (see the genealogical tree given below). Ram Chundee Chowdhary. ____________________|___________________ | | Krishna Nath Krishna Mohun, (Marr. Dayamoye). | ______|__________ | | | | Daughter Gogun Chunder Son Chundraboli (Defdt. No. 2). Shib Kishore (Marr. Gour (Marr. Gungamoni). Kishore Acharjee). _________|________ | | | Son Brojo Kishore. Joy Kishore Bhowani Kishore (Plaintiff No. 1). (Marr. Bhoobunmoye).3. On the death of Gour Kishore it devolved upon his son Bhowani Kishore by the Hindu law of succession. On the death of Bhowani Kishore without issue, a contest arose in respect of it between Chundraboli and her alleged adopted son, Ram Kishore, on the one h...
Ram Hari Chuckerbutty Vs. Kallida Pershad Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal317
Ainslie, J.1. We think that the Judge is right in the view he took of the question of limitation.2. The suit as framed was not one coming under the provisions of Section 27 of the Rent Law. The zamindar appears not to have come forward in his own name to interfere with the cultivation of one of his tenants, but to have proceeded by the agency of other persons, who now say he had given a lease without notice to the plaintiff. Where a landlord does not directly take steps to interfere with the rights of cultivation of his tenant, but does so through other persons, whose acts he may, if it so pleases him, afterwards ignore, he is not in a position to set up a special plea of limitation under the Rent Law.3. The other questions to be considered in this case are, whether the Judge. was right in treating this tenure as one which was transferable by sale, and in receiving the receipts put forward by the plaintiff as evidence in the case. It is unnecessary for us to go into the question of wha...
Juggernath Sahoo and ors. Vs. Judoo Roy Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal329
Ainslie, J.1. The final order in the suit, out of which the present case arises, was made by Her Majesty in Council. Under Section 610 of the Civil Procedure Code the decree-holders were bound to produce a certified copy of the final order when they applied for execution. It is no doubt true, as pointed out by the respondents' pleader, that the formal order of Her Majesty in Council is drawn up in the terms of the recommendation of the Judicial Committee in their judgment, but such recommendation cannot be taken to be the decree or order referred to in Section 610.2. Before the decree-holders can proceed with the execution of their decree in this case, it will be necessary for them to take steps to obtain a copy of the order of Her Majesty in Council. As to the costs of this appeal, the appellants are not entitled to them. On a former occasion, proceedings taken by the respondents for the purpose of enforcing their claim were stopped on the objection of the appellants, that it was nece...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›