Kolkata Court July 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.
Manick Chund Vs. Jomoona Doss
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1880
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal645
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We shall answer both questions in the negative, and we make no order as to costs....
Asman Singh Vs. Doorga Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal284
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff seeks to recover from the first party defendants the sum of Rs. 412-8 under the following circumstances.2. The plaintiff is the owner of nine annas of Mouza Ishakpore, and the defendants, first and second parties, of one anna and six annas respectively. The plaintiff is in charge of the collection of the rent of the mouza from the tenants. There are thirty-two bighas of khoodkast lands, which have been distributed amongst the proprietors in proportion of two bighas per anna, for which no rent is realisable.3. Over and above their proportionate share of the khoodkast lands, the defendants first party cultivated fifty-four bighas in the years 1281, 1282, 1283, and 1284. The plaintiff brought a suit, under Beng. Act VIII of 1869, to recover rent for these years on account of these lands from the defendants first party, and obtained a decree in the Court of first instance. But on appeal the suit was dismissed on the ground that there did not exist the relationshi...
Rajrup Koer Vs. Abul HosseIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-14-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal394
M.E. Smith, J.1. This was a suit brought by Maharaja Ramkissen Singh Bahadur to establish an asserted right to a pain or artificial watercourse, and also to a tal, or reservoir, and the water flowing from them through another estate to his own, and to obtain the removal of certain obstructions in the pain. The Maharanee, the present appellant, is his widow. Several questions arising in the suit have been finally disposed of in the Courts below, leaving for the decision of their Lordships the main question, which arose on the special appeal before the High Court, as to the effect of the Statute of Limitations upon two of the obstructions complained of.2. The facts necessary to raise this question may be shortly stated: The Maharaja and his ancestor were the owners of Mehal Sunaut Parwariya, in the district of Gya, and the defendants were the owners of an estate called Mouza Mora. The system of irrigation claimed by the plaintiff embraces an artificial pain, which is fed by a natural riv...
Ramlall Agarwallah Vs. Moonia Bibee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal79
Wilson, J.1. I consider it unnecessary to go into the facts, but upon the broad principle of law, laid down in the case of Earl Cholmondeky v. Lord Clinton (19 Ves., 261), viz., that an attorney having discharged his client cannot change sides, I will not enter into or decide the motion on the facts as stated in the affidavits. I feel myself bound to follow the ruling laid down in the case cited. I thought it would be for the benefit of the profession, that attorneys should know clearly what cases they were entitled to take up. Mr. Wheeler having admitted that he took an active part in the conduct of the defendants' case, I consider that the defendants are entitled to the order asked for; but in granting the application I wish it to be understood, that I have not entered into a discussion of the facts of the present case, and have refrained from any consideration of the question as to which of the parties to the application would be most prejudiced by my order. I would, thererore, simp...
Budoloo Khan Vs. Khemna Gowala
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1880
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal251
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff, who is the respondent in this Court, brought this suit for a kabuliat against the defendant, appellant, in the Court of the Deputy Collector of Chatra, in the Manbhum District, on 3rd June 1878, and on 7th August following, both plaintiff and defendant filed a joint petition before [255] the Deputy Collector, stating that they had agreed to refer the matters in dispute to certain arbitrators.2. These arbitrators, accordingly, delivered their award on 8th November, and it was sent in to the Deputy Collector. He, however, rejected it, as he considered that it was at variance with the decision in the case of Gogon Manji v. Kashishwary Debi (I. L. R., 3 Cal., 498), as it awarded a lower rate of rent than was claimed in the plaint. He, therefore, dismissed the suit. The lower Appellate Court, however, after discussing the legality of a reference to arbitration in a suit under Act X of 1859 (as to which he decided that such a reference could be legally made), and,...
Noferdoss Roy and ors. Vs. Modhu Soondari Burmonia and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1880
Reported in: (1880)ILR5Cal732
Jackson, J.1. There are two principal questions raised on the appeal of the plaintiffs in the present suit. One of them relates to an issue of fact; the other to a question of law. The plaintiffs contend that the Court below has come to an erroneous conclusion as to the circumstances under which a deed called a willnama, which was afterwards in substance affirmed by a document called an ikrarnama, was executed by Lukhmimoni Dossee, the widow of Jugomohun, who as mother inherited from her infant son Mul Chund. (His Lordship then considered the evidence as to the execution of these documents, and continued).2. The next question is as to the effect of the willnama and its validity. On that part of the case, I think it sufficient for us to refer to decided cases in our own Court in which this very point has boon raised. These cases appear to mo to be absolutely deciding the question so far as we are concerned. One is the case of Sharma Soonduree v. Surut Chunder Dutt (8 W.R., 500), in whic...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›