Kolkata Court February 1880 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.
Gocool Chunder Gossamee and ors. Vs. the Administrator General of Beng ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal726
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The only question in this case is, whether the plaintiffs have taken the proper course in bringing a fresh suit, instead of reviving the former one.2. The former suit was brought on the 4th of June 1869 by Gobind Chund Gossamee, the father of the plaintiffs, and the trustee named in the will of Kassinauth Mullick, against Rungomoney Dossee, the executrix of the will, for the purpose of having the trusts of that will declared and carried into execution.3. A decree was made in that suit, by which the will was established, and directions were given for the purpose of having a scheme settled, by which the trusts were to be carried out. Before this scheme was finally settled and approved, and whilst the proceedings were pending, the case was struck out of the board, upon the ground that the plaintiff was not prosecuting it with due diligence; and he and the defendant, executrix, have since died. The property is in the hands of the Administrator-General, and this suit h...
Saroda Soondury Dossee and anr. Vs. Doyamoyee Dossee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal938
Jackson, J.1. Now, the plaintiff's, on appeal before us, have relied ultimately upon Article 127 and Article 142 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1871), both of which are referred to in the grounds of special appeal. It appears to me that Article 127 clearly cannot apply. That relates to suits by a Hindu excluded from joint family property to enforce a right to share therein, and in order to bring the suit within that description, it will have to be shown that there had been joint family property, and that the plaintiffs have been excluded from the enjoyment of it, and therefore desire to enforce their right to share therein. I should be inclined to hold that the word 'excluded' implies previous inclusion, and that such a suit as this could not be maintained by a person who had never had any portion of the joint family property; but at any rate it would be necessary to show that there had been joint family property. Now, from the finding of the Judge, it is clear that that is not the state...
The Bank of Bengal Vs. Mendes
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal654
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit is brought by the Bank of Bengal to recover from the defendant the sum of Rs. 14,700 and interest upon his promissory note.2. The defendant's answer is, that the note was given to secure to the Bank the repayment of a loan, which they made to him in October 1878; that, as part of the same transaction, he deposited with the Bank, by way of further security, certain Government notes, one of which was for Rs. 10,000; and that he is not bound to pay them their money, unless they are prepared to give him back these notes.3. The Bank are ready to give up all the securities, except the note for Rs. 10,000, which they say that they are unable to return for the following reason:4. In one branch of their establishment they carry on the ordinary business of bankers; in another, which is called the Public Debt Office, they have the management of the public debt on behalf of the Government, both branches being under the charge of officers who are employed and paid by...
Sourujmull and ors. Vs. the Ganges Manufacturing Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal669
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the lower Court has taken a correct view of this ease. The plaint does not very correctly describe what the true cause of action is against the defendants; but the evidence is conflicting, and the circumstances peculiar; and we think that the learned Judge was fully justified in giving the plaintiffs a decree for what really appears to be their due.2. The facts, as we consider them to be proved, are these:3. Messrs. Cohen Brothers had contracted with the defendants to buy of them a large number of gunny bags in the months of April and May 1878. The time for taking delivery of these bags had been extended at the request of Messrs. Cohen; and on the 22nd July there remained 107,500 bags still undelivered.4. The defendants had been pressing Messrs. Cohen to take delivery of these bags; and on the last-mentioned day Mr. Cohen, a member of the firm, called at the office of Messrs. Macneill and Co., the defendants' agents. He informed them that he had arra...
Juggobundhu Mukerjee and ors. Vs. Ramchunder Bysack
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal584
Richard Garth, C.J.1. If we were satisfied that, in the Mundul's case (19 W.R., 101) their Lordships of the Privy Council intended to decide the question which is now referred to us, it would, of course, have been unnecessary to consider the matter further. But, upon a careful perusal of their Lordships' judgment, and on referring to the facts as they appear in the copy of the printed book, we much doubt whether the point was really raised in that case, or whether their Lordships intended to express any opinion upon it.2. We have, therefore, now to decide the matter without reference to their Lordships' judgment; and having considered the sections of the Code which bear upon it, and the somewhat contradictory decisions to which we have been referred during the argument, we have come to the conclusion, that the question of law referred to us should be answered in the affirmative.3. Sections 223 and 224 of the Code point out the mode of executing decrees in suits for immoveable property;...