Kolkata Court November 1881 Judgments
Padmakumari Debi Chowdhrani and anr. Vs. the Court of Wards (Represent ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-12-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal302
R. Couch, J.1. The suit in this case was brought by Jaikishor Surma Chowdhry against Ramkishor Acharjia Chowdhry and Gogunchandra Chowdhry, for the possession of certain zamindaries, taluks, and other properties mentioned in the schedules to the plaint, which formerly belonged to Bhowanikishor Acharjia Chowdhry, who died without issue on the 28th of August 1840, leaving a widow Bhoobunmoyee. Jaikishor having died during the suit, his widow, the first appellant, was made a party to it in his place.2. The property in dispute originally belonged to Gourkishor, who died in 1821, leaving Bhowanikishor, his only son, and a widow, Chandraboli, the mother of Bhowani. Chandraboli was the daughter of Krishnanath and granddaughter of Ramchandra Chowdhry. The plaintiff, Jaikishor, was the great-grandson of Ramchandra, and he claimed to succeed as the heir of Bhowanikishor on the death of Chandraboli, who had succeeded to the estates on the death of Bhoobunmoyee in 1867, and died in April 1870.3. I...
Tag this Judgment!Gunga Ram and anr. Vs. Sujan Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-11-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal337
R. Couch, J.1. The suit in this appeal was brought by Hurdial Singh, who has since died and is now represented by the respondents, against Makhan Singh and the appellant Sujan Singh, to recover a sum of money which the plaintiff said he had paid as surety, and was entitled to recover from them.2. Makhan Singh is since dead, and his representative has not joined in the appeal. Sujan Singh is the son and representative of Nand Singh, who died before the suit.3. The circumstances under which the plaintiff became surety are, that, on the 12th of November 1869, Nand Singh and Makhan Singh, through their agent Gormukh Singh, entered into a contract with the Political Agent of the State of Bahawalpur to supply timber, the contract being that the timber should be supplied clear and without knots; that, on its arrival at Multan, it was to be examined there by a mistree appointed by the Political Agent, and after inspection was to be forwarded to Bahawalpur; that, though the timber should be for...
Tag this Judgment!Baney Madhub Shaw and anr. Vs. Baney Madhub Shaw and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-02-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal207
Prinsep, J.1. The petitioners in this case are two servants of a licensed vendor of spirits, who have been convicted, each of them, for having, in breach of their license,--firstly, sold a bottle of brandy which was carried off and not drunk on the premises; and secondly, for having refused, on the demand of the Police Inspector, to produce their license.2. As regards the first breach, an objection is taken, that the master, the licensed vendor, was alone liable, and not the servants. Two judgments of this Court have been considered by us on this point: In re Ishur Chunder Shaha 19 W.R., Cr., Rul., 34, and the other, recently delivered by Mr. Justice Pontifex and Mr. Justice Field The Empress v. Nuddiar Chand Shaw I.L.R. 6 Cal. 832; S.C. 8 C.L.R. 152. These decisions are in conflict. Our opinion inclines to the decision in In re Ishur Chunder Shaha 19 W.R., Cr. Rul., 34; and having regard to the fact that that decision was not brought to the notice of the Judges who decided the more re...
Tag this Judgment!issuridutt Singh and ors. Vs. Ibrahim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-02-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal654
Mitter, J.1. We think that the decision of the lower Appellate Court is correct, although we do not agree with the Judge in holding that Article 126 of Act XV of 1877 applies to this case. This was not a suit to set aside a father's alienation of ancestral property. In the first place, it was a suit for partition; and in the next place, it was a suit not to set aside an alienation made by the father, but to obtain a share by partition of a joint family property, the interest of the father having been sold in execution of a decree. That being so, Article 127 would apply. Under that article, a person excluded from joint family property and bringing a suit to enforce his right to a share therein must bring that suit within twelve years from the date or time when the exclusion becomes known to him. Now, in this case, upon the finding of the District Judge, the plaintiffs became aware of the alleged exclusion on the date of the attachment. The District Judge was, therefore, right (under Art...
Tag this Judgment!Dewan Ali Vs. Soroshibala Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-02-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal297
Prinsep, J.1. The objection taken against the order of the District Judge, disallowing the application for execution of decree, is, that Section 230 of the Civil Procedure Code, under the last paragraph of which the Judge has acted, does not apply. The facts have not been stated by the Judge in his judgment, but, as represented by the decree-holder's pleader, they appear to be as follows:2. The decree was passed on the 29th May 1865, and was confirmed on appeal on the 9th December of the same year.3. The previous application for execution was made in September 1877, that is before the Code of 1877 came into force. The next application for execution was made on the 30th January 1880, but from the order passed on that application it would seem that it was not admitted, but rejected, because it was informal. The present application, which was made on the 11th September 1880, was, under such circumstances, not a second application within the meaning of the Section (230) of the Code. That s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›