Kolkata Court July 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.
Krishna Churn Baisack and ors. Vs. Protab Chunder Surma, Alias Rajendr ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal560
Prinsep, J.1. This case arose out of a proceeding under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Under that proceeding the present plaintiffs were, as they allege, turned out of possession, and they have brought this suit to recover possession, alleging the following title: They say that the property originally-belonged to one Gopal Pershad Thakur, who granted a miras lease of it to his daughter, Fulkumari. In the plaint the date of this lease is not given, but from subsequent proceedings it appears that the date is Aghran 1244, corresponding with December 1837. They then say that Fulkumari was in possession of this property under this lease, and that, on the 7th Jeyst 1276, corresponding with 17th May 1869, she sol (sic) to the plaintiffs' father, who obtained possession, and that the plaintiff a succeeded him in possession, and remained in possession until they were (sic) by the proceedings under Section 530 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The Subordinate Judge was of opin...
Degamber Mozumdar and anr. Vs. Kallynath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-04-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal654
Field, J.1. These two appeals will be governed by the same judgment.2. In No. 447, Kallynath Roy is the plaintiff, and in No. 448, Futtick Chunder Roy is the plaintiff. These two plaintiffs are co-sharers in certain properties: and they have brought these suits against Degamber Mozumdar and Mohima Chandra Sen, who, they allege, were gomashtas, or agents, employed on their behalf in making zamindari collections in the manner customary in the mofussil. The object of these suits is to obtain accounts from these agents; but according to an erroneous practice too common in the mofussil, the plaintiffs have asked a certain amount as damages if those accounts are not rendered.3. In a number of cases which have recently been before this Court, the practice which ought to be followed in this class of cases has been explained. The plaintiff should ask in his plaint that a proper account may be taken. If the defendant is found liable to render such account for a certain period, the Court should m...
Modun Mohun Pal Vs. NobIn Chunder Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal697
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think this appeal must be dismissed. The plaintiff sued to eject the defendants from certain lands, which the defendants and their father and grandfather before them had held for the performance of certain services. There does not appear to be any doubt as to what the services were, although the Subordinate Judge does not describe them; because both parties seem to agree, that they consisted in collecting the rents of certain debutter lands, and paying those rents, or applying them in some way, for the worship of an idol. The defendants' case was, that they had a permanent tenure which had its origin in a grant given to their ancestor in the year 1139, and the first Court having found this grant to be genuine, dismissed the plaintiffs suit.2. The Subordinate Judge took a different view. He considered, for the reasons which he gives in his judgment, that the document brought forward by the defendants was not genuine, and he believed it to have been fabricated wit...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›