Kolkata Court May 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.
Rajendro Kishore Singh Vs. Bulaky Mahton and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal367
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It has been contended before us, that as regards the claim for the value of the trees, the plaintiff's rights are saved by Section 14 of the last Limitation Act.2. That section enacts, that, in computing the period of limitation, the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another suit against the defendants shall be excluded, when the proceeding is founded upon the same cause of action, and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it.'3. Now it seems that the plaintiff, sometime ago, brought a suit for the value of these trees in the name of a person who sued as his manager; and the suit was dismissed by the High Court, on the ground that as manager he had no right to sue on behalf of the plaintiff. It is argued that this was a suit prosecuted by the plaintiff (within the meaning of Section 14) in good faith, and in a Court which from defect of...
Sibbosoondery Dabia Vs. Bussoomutty Dabia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal191
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit by a widow to enforce her claim to a share in certain properties of her deceased husband, which are being partitioned between he husband's descendants. The husband was one of five brothers, and those five brothers and their descendants continued to live jointly till the partition in question; he died leaving a widow (the plaintiff) and two sons. The first son was Suttya Runjun, who died before the partition decree, leaving his daughter Bussoomutty (the first defendant) his only daughter and heiress. The second son, Suttya Krishna, was alive at the date of the passing of the partition decree; he has since died, leaving four sons, the infant defendants, his heirs, Suttya Bhoosun, Suttessur, Suttya Nundo and Suttyajeet. The partition suit was instituted some years ago for the partition of the whole family property, and the decree in that suit was made on the 28th November 1872. That decree gave Suttya Krishna, the son of Suttya Prosunno, five-thirtieths, and Bu...
BallIn Vs. BallIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal218
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit brought to determine the construction of the will of Mrs. Anna Maria Ballin.2. The will is prior to the Succession Act; and has, therefore, to be construed according to the rules of English law without reference to that Act.3. The will is somewhat informally framed. It commences by certain specific bequests and devises. It proceeds:---'I bequeath the residue of my personal estate to the Administrator-General, upon trust, to stand possessed of my dwelling-house and premises situate No. 30, Theatre Road,' and another dwelling-house, and the residue of the personal estate, upon trust, till a mortgage-debt was paid off, to pay a monthly sum to the testatrix's daughter Mary Margaret, and subject to that payment to apply the rents and profits in satisfaction of the mortgage. 'And after satisfaction of the said mortgage-debt as to my said house and premises situate No. 30, Theatre Road, upon trust, to pay the rents and profits thereof to my said daughter Mary Marga...
Punnoo Singh and ors. Vs. NirghIn Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal298
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit is brought against the defendants for the rent of a jote for the years 1283, 1284, and 1285, the plaintiffs claiming at the rate of Rs. 2 per bigha.2. They say in their plaint that they are, properly speaking, entitled to rent at the rate of Rs. 2-8 per bigha, but that the recovery of such higher rent depends 'upon the adoption of other steps,' by which we understand them to mean, that to recover the higher rent they must bring a suit for enhancement.3. The answer of the defendants is this, that the plaintiffs brought a previous suit against them for the years 1281 and 1282, in which they claimed rent for the same jote at the rate of Rs. 2-8 per bigha; that their answer to that suit was, as it is now, that their proper rent was fifteen annas per bigha; and that in that suit, as the plaintiffs failed to prove the rate of Rs. 2-8 [301] which they claimed, a decree was given in their favor for the sum which the defendants admitted,-namely, at the rate of fi...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›