Kolkata Court March 1881 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.
Gobind Chunder Moitra Vs. Abdool Sayad and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR6Cal835
Pontifex, J.1. I think this rule must be made absolute and the order of the Deputy Magistrate must be set aside. In giving my reasons for this decision, it is necessary to advert shortly to some circumstances which preceded the order made by the Deputy Magistrate. The person moving for the rule is one Gobind Chunder Moitra, who alleges that, in March 1879, he purchased the property with respect to which the order which he seeks to set aside was made under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the date of such order being the 20th January 1881.2. On the 20th March 1879, Gobind Chunder applied, under the land Registration Act, to have the land registered in his name. The decision of the Deputy Collector, in which he found that Gobind Chunder had proved possession and was entitled to registration, was not passed until the 24th December 1879.3. Now it appears that, prior to this alleged purchase by Gobind Chunder Moitra, Abdool Sayad and Abdool Majid, who now oppose the rule, had ...
Falle and ors. Vs. Macewen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal1
Pontifex, J.1. This case, although exceedingly important to the subscribers to and pensioners upon the Uncovenanted Service Family Pension Fund, does not appear to us to be one of much difficulty. The Fund was established many years ago for the purpose of securing a provision for the widows and children of its subscribers. Originally, or at all events prior to 1850, the Rule (then being No. 33) as to payments of pensions was as follows:---'That widows being incumbents on the Fund shall be paid their pensions at any place they may desire, either monthly, quarterly, or half-yearly, subject to the usual charges of remittance. The pensions of children being incumbents shall also be so paid, and on the same conditions.' The subscriptions were and continue to be paid in rupees, and the pensions are calculated in rupees according to certain tables.2. It is clear, of course, that the tables would be untrustworthy and deceptive guides, if the subscriptions were paid in a lower and the pensions ...
The Land Mortgage Bank of India, Limited Vs. Surnomoye Dassya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal173
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the District Judge has taken an erroneous view of this case. [His Lordship then stated the facts as above and continued.]2. Both parties complain of this decision, the plaintiffs (by way of appeal), on ground, that the defendants were not entitled to any part of the surplus proceeds; and the defendants (by way of cross objection) on the ground, that they are entitled to the whole of the Rs. 865-5-9, and that the Court below was wrong in directing them to restore Rs. 315 to the plaintiffs.3. It is strange that, during the whole of the argument in this Court, we have been allowed to remain under a wrong impression as to a point upon which, as it seems to us, the whole case turns. We were led to suppose, that the suit brought by the defendants, in which they recovered the Rs. 865-5-9, was not brought within two months from the time, of the sale of the patni; and if that had been so, we think that the Munsif would have had no power to order that sum to b...
Nittyanund Roy Vs. Abdar Raheem and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal77
Morris, J.1. The only point at issue in this case is, whether the etmami tenure of the defendants existed at the time of the Permanent Settlement. The lower Appellate Court, reversing the decision of the first Court, has decided in favour of the defendants. It relies entirely upon certain papers of the year 1126-27 Mughi, corresponding with the English year 1764, which purport to be abstracts from, or copies of, chittas made apparently in that year. The Judge says: 'I am inclined to admit them,' and he does so, because, to use his own words, 'they are public documents compiled by, used by, and guarded by public officers, and their certified copies are admissible as evidence of the contents of the original.' Now, in the first place, these documents are not copies of the originals, but they are copies of copies. No reason is assigned why the originals or their copies are not produced. Then, again, there is nothing to show, beyond the fact that they came from the Collectorate, that they a...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›