Kolkata Court June 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.
Fakera Doobay and ors. Vs. Sheo Churn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal91
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The present appellant says, that these intervening defendants may at some future time make a claim for their shares of the property as against him, and that, as long as there is any uncertainty as to their title, it would not be right for us to confirm the decree of the Court below giving the whole property to the plaintiff's. In support of this argument we are referred to the case of Sivagnana Tevar v. Periasami Tevar (I. L. R., 1 Mad., 312; S. C., L. R., 5 I. A., 61) decided by the Privy Council.That case appears to us to be totally different from the present. There the parties, who were said to be entitled to the property as against the plaintiff, were not made parties to the suit; and the High Court, although there was good reason for supposing that those persons were really entitled, declined to try the question whether they were entitled or not, considering that, as between the plaintiff and those persons, the question of title might be settled in another su...
Ramconnoy Audicarry Vs. Johur Lall Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal867
Wilson, J.1. This suit, which was undefended, was upon a promissory note. The note was for Rs. 400, was dated the 4th June 1877, was payable on demand, and bore interest at 5 per cent. monthly. The only question was, what amount was recoverable in respect of interest.2. The parties are Hindus; and it is clear that their rights are governed by the Hindu law, unless there be some Statute providing a different rule. I think it is also well settled that, by Hindu law, arrears of interest more than sufficient to double the debt are not recoverable; Menu, Chap. VIII, 151; Col. Dig., Bk. I, Chap. II, Section 2, pl. xliii; Dhendu Jagannath v. Narayan Ram Chandra (1 Bom. H.C., A.C., 47), Khuskal Chand Lalchand v. Ibrahim Fakir (3 Bom. H.C., A.C.A.C., 23). Ramkrishnabhat v. Vithoba (1 Bom. H.C., A.C., 25), and Narayan v. Stavaji (9 Bom. H.C., A.C., 83).3. Has then any Statute altered the law upon this point to be applied to Hindus in this Court? The Bombay cases above referred to decide that Act...
Durga Pershad Vs. Asa Jolaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal925
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This case seems to us very clear. The suit is brought to recover damages for a malicious prosecution, and the plaintiff says, that besides the actual costs to which he has been put by the malicious proceedings, and which amount to Rs. 104-15, he is also entitled to an additional sum for damages to his reputation. The question is, whether this is a case which may be tried in a Small Cause Court.2. Section 6 of Act XI of 1865 says, first, that a suit may be brought in the Small Cause Court for damages, but that no action shall lie in such Courts on account of an alleged personal injury, unless actual pecuniary damage has resulted from the injury; that means, that if actual pecuniary damage has resulted from the injury, then the suit may be brought in the Small Cause Court.3. Now, in this case, there is no doubt that actual pecuniary damage has resulted from the injury, because the plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 104-15, which he says he has had to pay for costs. It is...
Giridhur Chowdhry by His Guardian Kamini Chowdhrani Vs. Luchmun Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal855
Pontifex, J.1. Those questions may be answered in the affirmative]. The second question referred is answered by the arguments as to the first. The third question may be answered by Kanto Lall's case (L.R., 11. A., 321; S.C. 14 B.L.R., 187), which is distinguishable only from the fact that in that case a stranger was the purchaser. The difference between the first and third questions is only a question of the form of the decree. As to the fourth question, Sections 28 and 29 of Chap. I of the Mitakshara may be cited against us. Yet these sections must be read with the qualification that a son is bound to pay his father's debts, and there are texts which go so far as saying, that, even during the lifetime of the father, a son is bound to pay his father's debts. [Garth, C.J.--The hardship is, that the father might sell any portion of the property without consulting the son]. The cases of Buddree Lall v. Kanto Lall (23 W.R., 260) and Anoorajee Koer v. Bhugobutty Koer (25 W.R., 148), both de...
In Re: Hurruck Chund Golicha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal605
Broughton, J.1. On these facts, without reference to an affidavit in answer, filed a week ago by the petitioning creditor, and I think properly available to him in this enquiry, two questions have arisen: first, a question of construction; and secondly, a question of practice.2. The first question is, whether a trader, who trades by a gomashta, can be adjudicated an insolvent, if the gomashta commits an act of insolvency. If he cannot, there must be numerous cases in which native traders in this city cannot be adjudicated insolvent at all, for nothing is more common than for a. trader living in the mofussil, and scarcely ever visiting Calcutta, to leave an extensive business in the hands of his gomashta, who has the fullest authority, and who carries on the whole business on his behalf.3. There are two ways in which a man may become insolvent. He may petition himself, under Section 5, or a creditor may petition under Sections 8 or 9.4. Under Section 5, the petitioning insolvent must 'r...
ishwar Chunder Dutt and ors. Vs. Ram Krishna Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal902
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It appears to us that, having regard to the weight of authority in this Court, as well as to the question of principle and convenience, the proper solution of the points referred to us is as follows:2. That a sale of a share in a tenure, which has been let to a tenant in its entirety, does not of itself necessarily effect a severance of the tenure or an apportionment of the rent; but that, if the purchaser of the share desires to have such a severance or apportionment, he is entitled to enforce it by taking proper steps for that purpose.3. If he takes no such steps, then the tenant is justified in paying the entire rent, as before, to all the parties jointly entitled to it. But if the purchaser desires to effect a severance of the tenure and an apportionment of the rent, he must give the tenant due notice to that effect, and then, if an amicable apportionment of the rent cannot be made by arrangement between all the parties concerned, the purchaser may bring a sui...
Udoi Chand Alias Munmun Vs. Umaid Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal119
1. Mr. G. Gregory and Baboo Mohesh Chunder Chowdhry for the Respondent.2. The learned Judges (Garth, C.J., and Prinsep, J.) before whom the case was heard referred it to a Full Bench. The referring order was as follows:3. 'A question of Hindu Law has arisen in this case, which, being of general importance, we think should be referred to a Full Bench.4. 'The plaintiff in this suit, Udoi Chand, claims certain property as heir to his father, Poran Chand, under a conveyance from one Mussamut Nobo Bahu, the widow of Mukhtab Bahadur, to whom the property originally belonged: and for the purposes of the question at issue, it must be taken that the plaintiff has a right to recover the property from the defendant, unless the latter can show that by Hindu Law he is the heir of Mukhtab Bahadur.5. 'The defendant claims to be the heir of Mukhtab Bahadur through Mussamut Jeswant Koer, his maternal grandmother, his mother having been the daughter of Jeswant Koer, and Jeswant Koer having been the sist...
Fatten Lall Vs. Gujju Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal171
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This special appeal depends upon a question of law, which we think should be referred to a Full Bench.2. It was admitted on both sides in the lower Courts, that if Sham Behari Lall survived Mussamut Sheo Bucham Koer, then the plaintiff was the nearest heir of Bhichuk Lall, and as such was entitled to succeed; but if, on the other hand, Mussamut Sheo Bucham Koer survived him, then he was not so entitled.3. In the Court of first instance, the plaintiff relied upon a judgment in a former suit, dated the 26th of June 1876, in which the question was raised between Gujju Lall, the present defendant (who was the plaintiff in that suit), and Janki Singh and others (the defendants in that suit), whether Gujju Lall or Sham Behari Lall was the nearest heir of Bhichuk Lall. It was decided in that suit that Sham Behari Lall was the nearest heir of Bhichuk Lall. In this suit it was contended by the defendant in both the lower Courts, that the judgment in the former suit could n...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›