Kolkata Court November 1882 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.
Haridas Sen Vs. Ram Chunder Poddar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal463
Richard Garth, C.J.1. These suits were brought by two different plaintiffs to recover two several portions of the same property. They were dealt with by the Courts below in one judgment, the plaintiff's claim being dismissed in each case by the Subordinate Judge, and decreed by the District Judge.2. I propose to deal with one of the suits only, No. 529, and the same judgment will dispose of them both.3. The plaintiff in that suit is Hari Das Sen. He claimed as the reversionary heir of one Kali Das Roy, and he says that his title accrued upon the death of one Monikornika, who was the daughter of Kali Das Roy. She died in 1879.4. There is no doubt that the plaintiff was the reversionary heir of Kali Das Roy.5. The defendants claim the property under two kobalas, dated the 25th Magh 1256 by which the property was conveyed to the predecessors of the defendants by a person named Kali Kishore Das, who was the son of Monikornika; and who, at the time when the conveyance was made, was the pres...
Rughu Nath Singh Manku Vs. Pareshram Mahata and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-30-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal635
Prinsep, J.1. The first Court in this case held that the decree was not barred by limitation, and on another point decided in favour of the judgment-debtors.2. The decree-holder alone appealed against the latter finding. No objection under Section 561 was taken by the judgment-debtors against the finding as regards limitation which was adverse to him. At the hearing of the appeal, in the course of the argument, the point of limitation was raised, and the lower Appellate Court held that execution was barred.3. We are of opinion that the lower Appellate Court was, under the circumstances, not competent to consider this point; and in this respect we concur in the judgment delivered by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Alimannissa Khatoon v. Syed Hossein Ali 6 C.L.R. 267. The District Judge has gone beyond the law in stating that the point of limitation must be considered, even though it be not pleaded.' The terms of Section 4 of the Limitation Act declare that a Court ha...
Dhanpat Singh Vs. Saraswati Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-27-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal431
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think there is no ground for this appeal.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to have his name registered as the owner of two mahals, and he made out his title in this way:3. Asrafunnissa was the original owner of the property, and the plaintiff's case was that Asrafunnissa mortgaged it to one Hulash Chand in 1861; that Hulash Chand foreclosed the mortgage in 1864; and that Hulash Chand then sold it to the plaintiff in 1877; and he has proved these facts to the satisfaction of the lower Court.4. Then it is also admitted by both sides that one Khudiram farmed the property from 1251 to 1260; and that from the year 1262 it has been let in patni to the representatives of Khudiram, and it has been proved that Hulash Chand, under whom the plaintiff claims, sued the representatives of Khudiram for the patni rent and obtained a decree for the years 1281 and 1283, and, moreover, that the amount of that decree was paid by the present defendant or her attorney.5. Now t...
Mahender Prasad and ors. Vs. Ramdut Sing
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Nov-23-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal452
Mitter, J.1. In this case the District Judge has reversed the decree of the: Court of First Instance, wholly relying upon the Privy Council ruling in the case of Deendyal Lal v. Jugdeep Narain Singh I.L.R. 3 Cal. 198. It appears to us that this ruling has no application to he facts of this case. Here the creditor, the appellant before us, sued the father of a joint Mitakshara family upon a bond executed by him, obtained a decree, and in execution of that decree attached the family property. Thereupon the sons intervened and objected to the sale of the entire family property; their objection was disallowed by the execution Court. Thereupon, before the sale was brought about, the present suit was brought by the plaintiffs, the sons, to obtain a declaration that their interest in the family property is not liable to be taken in execution of the decree against the father. The Court of First Instance held that it was not proved that the bond debt was contracted for immoral purposes; on the ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›