Kolkata Court August 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.
Joynath Roy Vs. Lall Bahadour Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal126
Maclean, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit is a shareholder in Mehal Nowadabin, Pargana Arrah, in the Shahabad District. He alleges that he and his co-sharers, the defendants, 105 in number, are in separate possession of the land of their respective shares under a private partition made 'centuries ago,' but that some of the defendants brought the entire estate under regular partition, according to Reg. XIX of 1814, during his infancy, which terminated in Assin 1285 F (October 1876), and the proceedings were going on when he brought this suit on the 2nd July 1878. He prays that the partition may be stayed, and his possession of his share in the estate confirmed.2. Five of the defendants opposed the suit. They urged that the Munsif's Court, in which the suit was filed, had no jurisdiction, as the suit, on a proper computation, should have been valued at more than Rs. 1,000. They also alleged that the plaintiff himself was one of the applicants for partition, and they raised other objection...
Debender Nath Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Ram Loll Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal8
Field, J.1. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The two plaintiff's were co-sharers to the extent of four annas each in a darpatni taluk. The other eight-anna share belonged to the defendant No. 1, the defendant No. 2 holding this moiety benami for him. It appears that the rent of the darpatni fell into arrear, and that the patnidar brought suits, and recovered decrees for the rent so in arrear. The darpatni was brought to sale in execution of these decrees, and was purchased at the execution-sale by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs now bring this case to recover from the defendant No. 1 the moiety of the darpatni to which they were jointly entitled before the sale. The case made by them in their plaint, in paragraph six, was a case of actual or positive fraud. They there alleged that, after time had been given by the decree-holder to pay the sum due under the decree, the plaintiff's were prepared to pay their share on the date up to which time was given, and that the defe...
Koylash Chunder Bhuttacharjee Vs. Rajkristo Moitro and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-16-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal25
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the purchaser of certain immoveable property under a registered conveyance, and he brings this suit to obtain a declaration of his title to the property, his possession and quiet enjoyment having been disturbed by certain acts of the defendants.2. The only point we have to decide is, whether the consideration for the conveyance is an unlawful consideration. The contention is, that the money for which the property was sold was used for the purpose of suppressing a criminal prosecution; that this was an unlawful object; and that the plaintiff being well aware of the unlawful purpose to which the money was about to be applied, is affected with this knowledge, and cannot enforce the contract which was made for this unlawful consideration.3. We think that this contention is not tenable. The plaintiff was no party to the criminal prosecution. His contract for the purchase of the property was entirely separate; and there is not sufficient evidence upo...
Jugul Kishore Bhuttachaji Vs. Mohima Chunder Dhur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal736
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff sued to have a kobala or bill of sale set aside and declared spurious. It appears that the defendant presented this bill of sale for registration, and, under the special procedure provided in the Registration Act, he succeeded in obtaining an order of the District Registrar for the registration of the document. The first contention raised before us on appeal is, that this suit is not maintainable; and, in support of this contention, the case of Ram Chunder Paul v. Becharam Dey (10 W. R., 323) is quoted. Now, that case we think to have been virtually overruled by the case of Prasanna Kumar Sandyal v. Mathurnath Banerjee (8 B. L. R., Ap., 26), which latter case has been since followed in several other cases in this Court. Most decidedly, if we had to form an independent opinion, our view would be the same as that taken by the learned Judges in the latter case; but we think that, whatever may have been the state of the law before the passing of the p...
Jan Ali and anr. Vs. Ram Nath Mundul and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal32
Prinsep, J.1. Now, the first and indeed the only question which we have to decide is, whether the plaintiffs were competent to institute and maintain this suit. They seem to have thought that the suit was within the provisions of Section 529 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and they made an application to, and obtained the sanction of, the Advocate-General before instituting their suit. Now, the first observation that occurs to us on this point is, that a considerable portion of the prayer of the suit is clearly outside the provisions of Section 539, and that, in so far as regards so much of the prayer as does not fall within the provisions of this section, for reasons to be given hereafter, the plaintiffs were not entitled to institute this suit. But it appears to us that, even so far as regards that portion of the prayer of the plaint which falls directly within the provisions of Section 539, the plaintiffs are not persons to whom the provisions of that section can be held to be appli...
Anund Moye Dabi Vs. Grish Chunder Myti and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal772
Wilson and Cunningham, JJ.1. This is a suit by a purchaser at an execution-sale of the right, title, and interest of one Goluck Chunder Myti under the will of one Shib Pershad Giri.2. [775] The only question before us is one of limitation. If the suit is properly a mere suit for a debt, and if, as was argued before us, the will amounted at most to an acknowledgment of the debt so as to give a new period of three years within which to sue, then, it is conceded, the suit is barred.3. If, on the other hand, the will validly charged the debt on immoveable property, or created a valid trust for its payment, then, it is conceded, the suit is in time. (His Lordship then read the will as above set out and continued).4. It has been decided in England that a charge of debts generally in a will upon the testator's personal estate, or any portion of it, creates no trust so as to exclude the Statute of Limitations: Scott v. Jones (4 C. and F., 382).5. The reason is, 'because it does not at all vary...
Soodist Lall Vs. Bungsee Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal739
Prinsep, J.1. The facts of this case are somewhat complicated; but when these facts are understood, no real difficulty arises in dealing with the case. Four persons, who are in the suit termed the third party defendants, viz., Dukharun Lall Dobay, Baiju Lall Dobay, Gopal Dobay, and Lalji Dobay, were the proprietors of a 2a. 13g. 1c. 1cr. share out of 10 annas out of the entire 16 annas of Mouza Shazadpore Dumduma, alias Rohimpore, and also of 2a. 13g. 2c. 1cr. of Mozufferpore Thatha. Both these properties are wholly situate in the district of Bhagalpore. There were four mortgages affecting this property. The first mortgage was by Dukharun alone in favour of Rughoonath Prosad. This mortgage is dated the 19th September 1872, and it was a mortgage of la. 4p. share of Shahzadpore Dumduma. The second mortgage is dated the 20th September 1872. It was executed by Dukharun Lall, Baiju Lall, Gopal Dobay and Lalji Dobay in favour of the plaintiff in the present suit, Soodist Lall, and the proper...
Mohendro Coomar Dutt and ors. Vs. Heera Mohun Coondoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal723
Prinsep and Field, JJ.1. No. 108:-This is an appeal against the order of the Subordinate Judge of the 24-Parganas confirming a sale, and it is contended that this sale ought not to have been cofirmed--first, because there was material irregularity in publishing it; and secondly, because substantial injury had been sustained by the appellants in consequence of such material irregularity. The first material irregularity alleged is, that the sale-proclamation was not published in the mofussil. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that the weight of evidence is in support of the sale-proclamation having been duly published in the mofussil.2. The next contention is, that as the amount of annual rent payable upon the tenure was not stated in the notification of sale, this is a material irregularity. We certainly are of opinion that the amount of rent payable upon the tenure ought, in the careful transaction of business, to have been set out in the sale-proclamation ; but we are not prepared t...
Hem Chunder Chowdhry Vs. Brojo Soondury Debee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-02-1881
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal89
Morris, J.1. It seems to us that there is some difference between this case and the case referred to by the Judge, viz.; Bunsee Singh v. Mirza Nuzuf Ali Bag 22 W.R. 328. In the latter case, the decree was a decree for possession and a direction was given therein that the plaintiff do recover wasilat from the date of suit to the date of recovery of possession. In the present case, the decree was a decree for possession with wasilat from the date of dispossession to the date of suit. It is, therefore, argued that the award of wasilat is part of the decree. Admitting this for the moment, and without going to the length of the decision in the case of M.S. Fuzeelun v. Syud Keramut Hossein 21 W.R. 212 it seems to us, that even on this assumption the judgment of the lower Court must be upheld, and that the application for execution in the shape of determination of mesne profits is barred by limitation. The decree bears date the 10th February 1877, and the first application, which appears to u...
In Re: Poona Churn Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-01-1881
Reported in: (1881)ILR7Cal447
Morris, J.1. We are asked to exercise our powers of superintendence under Section 15 of the Charter Act, by remitting certain compensation awarded to two persons, who have been complained against by the petitioner, and by setting aside an order of discharge made by the Presidency Magistrate, and directing the trial of the case to be proceeded with, in the light of a construction which ought to have been put, but was not put, upon an order of sanction to a prosecution made by Mr. Justice Broughton, after judgment passed in a civil suit on the Original Side of the High Court, in which the petitioner was defendant, and the persons complained against, plaintiffs.2. After hearing the learned Standing Counsel in support of the action taken, and orders passed, by the Presidency Magistrate, and also Mr. Jackson who appeared, and whom we permitted to address us, on behalf of the persons who would be affected by any order directing a further trial of the case, and after considering the arguments...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »