Kolkata Court June 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.
Bukronath Singh Vs. the Government of India and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal389
Jackson, J.1. This is an appeal from the judgment of a Division Bench, in which the opinion of Mr. Justice Markby as the senior Judge prevailed over that of Mr. Justice R.C. Mitter.2. The suit originally commenced in the Court of a Munsif, in the district of West Burdwan; was afterwards transferred to that of the District Judge, as it appeared to have been greatly undervalued. Bukronath Singh, the plaintiff, asked for a confirmation of possession and declaration of title in respect of Mouzas Dekhia and others, which he alleged himself to be holding as his jagir mehal, subject to, and in consideration of, the performance of certain public duties. It appeared that his father had, in like manner, held these mouzas; that the defendant, who was the zamindar, having an unsatisfied decree against the father, had attached the mehal as the property of the judgment-debtor, and, notwithstanding the plaintiff's objection, caused it to be sold in satisfaction of such decree. The plaintiff alleged t...
Goury Pershad Vs. Sunkur Pershad
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1879
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal321
Broughton, J.1. The plaintiff (respondent) sued his brother the defendant (appellant) in this suit for Rs. 3,065 principal and interest, and being, as he describes it, the amount of debt due by the defendant and paid in excess by the plaintiff. The plaint is defective in so far that it omits to state that the money was paid for the defendant at his request, but if it appeared that the money was in fact paid for the defendant at his request, express or implied, that defect might be remedied.2. The case for the plaintiff is as follows:He says that when he and his brother were joint, that is to say, before September 1870, when they separated, he borrowed the money on bonds from a money-lender, and spent it for the joint benefit of himself and his brother; these bonds were signed by the plaintiff alone, and the money-lender sued him, and got a decree upon one of them. In order to avoid execution of this decree, and to retire another bond upon which no suit had been brought, the plaintiff c...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›