Kolkata Court August 1881 Judgments
RajnaraIn Bose and ors. Vs. the Universal Life Assurance Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-30-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal594
Broughton, J.1. The plaintiffs, executors of the will of Hurrish Chunder Bose (their father) seek to recover Rs. 25,000 upon a life policy which was assigned to their testator. They also seek to recover interest at the rate of 12 per centum per annum from the 27th May 1881.2. The defendants state in their written statement that they are willing to pay the amount secured by the policy to any one having a valid title and capable of giving them a sufficient discharge, but they contend that the plaintiffs are bound to obtain the concurrence of the representative of the assured. They submit that such representative is a necessary party to this suit, and state that they are ready to pay but they have not paid, the money into Court.3. The circumstances of the case are as follows:4. The policy was effected by Frederick Woodhouse, now deceased, on the 22nd March 1848, and Rs. 675 were paid by him as premium from March 23rd for six months.5. By this policy it is witnessed that 'whilst the afores...
Tag this Judgment!Kristomohiny Dossee Vs. Bama Churn Nag Chowdry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-29-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal733
Field, J.1. The appellant in this case obtained, on the 25th May 1880, a decree on a mortgage-bond executed in his favour by Ram Goti Nag. The three sons of Ram Goti Nag were judgment-debtors under that decree, which directed that the mortgage lien should be enforced---first, by sale of the property specifically mortgaged; and secondly, if the mortgage-debt were not thereby satisfied, by the sale of the other property in the possession of the judgment-debtors. The decree-holder proceeded, in February 1881, to execute this decree against the properties specifically mortgaged; and, after the issue of the sale-notification, it appears that a petition was presented to the Court in which the execution-proceedings were pending by one of the sons of Ram Goti Nag. This petition was presented three days before the date on which the sale was to take place. The purport of the petition was this, that the three sons of Ram Goti Nag were disputing as to the respective shares of their father's proper...
Tag this Judgment!Peary ChowdhraIn Vs. Protap Chunder Doss
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal174
Field, J.1. The facts of this case are briefly as follows:2. There are two properties, named Rungmehal and Tripuli. Rungmehal was first in existence as a one-storied building. Tripuli was subsequently erected in the form of a two-storied house. The original eastern wall of Rungmehal was built, as many native walls are built in this country, receding inwards gradually from the basement or foundation. When the Tripuli building was erected, the western side wall of the Tripuli house followed this recession or inclination of the eastern wall of the Rungmehal building, so as to lean upon this and rest partly over the original site thereof, that is upon the top of the one-story, of which the Rungmehal building originally consisted. From that point, the western side wall of the Tripuli building receded gradually inwards towards the east, so that the top of this side wall of the upper story of the Tripuli building lay somewhat to the east of the bottom of the same wall, where it rested upon th...
Tag this Judgment!Gocoolmoni Dossee Vs. Koylashbashiny Dossee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal230
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff is an auction-purchaser at a sale for arrears of Government revenue. He purchased a holding No. 123, which consists of some five bighas odd. He has brought the present case to evict certain persons who hold some three bighas of this holding under an alleged lakheraj title. The plaint has been framed in very wide language. The plaintiff alleges the fact of the purchase at a revenue-sale by her assignee. She then alleges that the right acquired by this revenue-sale was a right to hold the property purchased free of all incumbrances; and she concludes the plaint with a prayer that the defendant may be ejected, that khas possession may be given to her, and that she may be declared entitled to hold the land free of all incumbrances.2. Now, at one part of the argument it was contended, that this is really a suit to avoid an incumbrance, and is based upon the statutory right conferred by Section 12 of Beng. Act VII of 1868; but we think it would not be f...
Tag this Judgment!Brohmomoyee and anr. Vs. Kashi Chunder Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-25-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal266
Tottenham, J.1. This was an application made by one Kashi Chunder Sen to the District Judge, praying under Act IX of 1861 for the custody of a minor, his niece, and also for an injunction restraining the minor's mother and one Gopee Mohun Ghose from carrying out a marriage between the minor and the son of Gopee Mohun.2. The marriage was at first fixed for the 10th of March 1881, being two days after the petition was presented. The Judge accordingly issued an injunction on the 8th of March, and fixed a day for the disposal of the petition. When the petition came on for hearing, it was objected that, before the Judge's injunction reached the parties, the marriage had been performed. It was therefore contended that the applicant Kashi Chunder Sen had no more locus standi under Act IX of 1861. The Judge at once found that the mother of the minor was by law the person entitled to the custody of her daughter so far as the bodily custody was concerned, and that point appears to have been prac...
Tag this Judgment!Asmut Ali and anr. Vs. Ajgur Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-23-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal110
Tottenham, J.1. (His Lordship having stated the facts above set out, continued): Regard being had to the findings of fact arrived at by the Subordinate Judge upon the evidence, the appellants' pleader has confessed himself unable to press this appeal upon any but one ground,--viz., that the fourth exception to Section 37 q. v. supra 8 Cal. 110. Act XI of 1859 protects from the operation of the section such portion of the defendants' land as may be occupied by holdings, tank, or garden; and that the lower Court was wrong in supposing that a ryot cannot have the benefit of the exceptions, or that the defendants are bound to prove that they have themselves effected the improvements in question. And for this contention he has referred to the authority of this Court and of the late Sadar Court.2. In the case of Bhagho Bibee v. Ramkant Roy Chowdry I.L.R. 3 Cal. 293 the previous decisions bearing upon this point are cited, and the Court was content to follow those decisions as having unquesti...
Tag this Judgment!Alangamonjori Dabee Vs. Sonamoni Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-22-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal157
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit in which the plaintiff asks to have the will of one Chandranath Chowdhry construed, and to have certain provisions of that will declared invalid, and for other relief.2. The will was made in 1872. The testator died in 1873, leaving no sons but the plaintiff, his widow, three unmarried daughters, the defendant his mother, and other female relatives.3. By his will he appointed the defendant and others executrix and executors, of whom the defendant alone obtained probate. He gave monthly allowances in money to various female relatives, including Rs. 4 to the plaintiff, his widow, and Rs. 2 to each daughter while unmarried, which, on her marriage, was to go to the plaintiff; or if she lived elsewhere than in the family dwelling-house, Rs. 4 to the plaintiff for life. Certain Government papers he appropriated for the marriage expenses of his daughters, if necessary, and subject to this the plaintiff was to have the papers, but without power of sale, and to provid...
Tag this Judgment!Lawless Vs. the Calcutta Landing and Shipping Co., Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal627
Wilson, J.1. These are cross-suits. The one is brought by the administrator of Captain Lawless for arrears of salary and commission due to Captain Lawless before his death as manager of the Calcutta Landing and Shipping Company. The other suit is for money for which the defendant is said not to have accounted. There is no dispute as to the amount of the administrator's claim. On the other hand, it is admitted, that Captain Lawless was bound to account for the money which came to his hands as manager. Two grounds of dispute were raised to the cross-claim: first, they claim to set off what is due, and in the cross action they claim the same relief. The objection to their claim is this: first, it is said the claim is barred by limitation. Now in the case of a person employed as manager the right of the employer is to have an account rendered by the person employed whenever he is called on to do so under reasonable circumstances. There is nothing to show that Captain Lawless was ever calle...
Tag this Judgment!Lokenath Mullick and ors. Vs. Odoychurn Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal644
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit in which the plaintiffs ask to revive certain causes which have abated, and ask that the present suit may be taken as supplemental to the said causes, and that the plaintiffs may be declared entitled to the benefit of the various decrees and orders made therein from time to time.2. The original suit was instituted in the Supreme Court on the 26th October 1807, and then there have been a series of other suits by which the older suit has been revived from time to time. The original suit was for the administration of the estate of Nemyechand Mullick, and the parties to it were his grandsons, of whom two were defendants.3. The parties to the present suit all claim under one or other of those grandsons. In 1808, a decree was made, under which certain testamentary papers were established and the grandsons declared entitled to shares, &c.; Another decree was made in 1837, under which certain moneys were set apart for certain purposes which are said to have been sat...
Tag this Judgment!Futteh Ali Vs. Gunganath Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal114
Morris, J.1. This was a suit for contribution brought by the plaintiff (appellant) to recover from the defendants collectively the amount due by them as their aggregate quotas under a decree passed against them and the plaintiff jointly, which decree had been satisfied by the plaintiff alone, on the attachment of his property in execution thereof.2. The form of the suit was clearly wrong, for the plaintiff had no right to sue for a joint decree against all the defendants, although the decree passed against himself and them had wrongly made them jointly liable for the whole amount of it.3. The Munsif, however, determined the amounts of the several liabilities of the defendants, and made a decree in favour of the plaintiff accordingly.4. On appeal to the District Judge, the Munsif's decree was reversed, and the suit was dismissed. The findings upon which the decision of the Appellate Court was based were, that, under the decree obtained against him and the defendants jointly, he was legi...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »