Kolkata Court February 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.
Kristocomul Mitter Vs. Suresh Chunder Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-16-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal556
Wilson, J.1. The facts in this case are as follows: Nilcomul Mitter, J., a brother of the plaintiff, was adjudicated an insolvent in the year 1860, but never obtained his final discharge. In 1862, by the death of his father, he became entitled to certain joint family property as one of three sons, and continued in undisturbed possession; and the Official Assignee never intervened or made any claim so long as the property was undivided. In 1876, the plaintiff and the third brother brought a suit against the widow and second brother, asking for partition. On the 13th May 1877, a decree for partition was made and carried out, and Nilcomul remained in undisturbed possession of his divided share, the Official Assignee making no claim. In June 1880, Nilcomul sold his interest to the present defendant, who, I find, bought in good faith, without notice, and paid full value. On the 4th December 1880 six months after, the plaintiff bought the same share from the Official Assignee for a small sum...
Protap Chunder Dass Vs. Arathoon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-15-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal455
Field, J.1. In this case one Baboo Protap Chunder Dass, the plaintiff, entered into an arrangement with Mr. Arathoon, the defendant, under which the former was to purchase rice on behalf of the latter, and was to receive one per cent. on all moneys actually advanced, and also a commission of one rupee eight annas of the transactions. After the execution of this agreement, rice was, on several occasions, purchased by the plaintiff and forwarded to the defendant. Disputes arose in consequence of its being alleged by the defendant that the rice so forwarded was not of a quality which had been contracted for. Other disputes, to which it is unnecessary to refer in detail, also arose in connection with consignments of rice and other matters concerned with the transactions had under the agreement; and the result was a suit by the plaintiff in which he claimed the sum of Rs. 2,920 odd. Upon the 30th of April 1879, he obtained, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Dacca, a decree for a port...
Luchmee Chund and anr. Vs. the Bengal Coal Company
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal317
Richard Garth, C.J. and Pontifex, J.1. We think that the appeal should be dismissed. Without going into the grounds upon which the Court below disposed of the application, we think that, in the exercise of our discretion, we ought not to order the Bengal Coal Company, under Section 34 of the Indian Companies Act, to register the transfer. That transfer was made in the absence from this country of Colonel Mowbray Thomson, who was the registered owner of the shares. It was made by a Mr. Thompson, a member of the firm of Nicholls and Co., who held a power-of-attorney from Colonel Mowbray Thomson: and it is conceded, that not only was the transfer made in blank, but that the Company knew it. It was made, moreover, by Mr. Thompson very shortly before [326] Messrs. Nicholls and Co., became insolvent: and it was brought to the Company to be registered on the very day when the insolvency took place.2. The Company were then served with a notice by Messrs. Grindlay and Co., on behalf of Colonel ...
Ram NaraIn Singh Vs. Thakur Doyal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-13-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal375
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the plaintiff who is the zamindar of an estate, claims on the ground that, on the 16th March 1854, a service jagir was granted to one Bhola Bhandari; and that the grantee subsequently executed an ikrarnama setting out that the grant was an ordinary service jagir. The plaintiff further states that the grantee has since died, and accordingly claims to resume.2. The defendant, who is admittedly the lineal descendant of Bhola Bhandari, set up the case that he holds under his sanad, which, he contends, departed from the ordinary terms of a service jagir, inasmuch as it contained the word auladad,--i.e., descendible to heirs generally, both male and female.3. This sanad has not been produced, and the Court below has found that no satisfactory evidence has been given to account for its non-production. This being the case, the Judge has held that the onus lay upon the defendant to show the special terms of the sanad which he sets up, and in the absence of the sana...
Muttyjan and ors. Vs. Ahmed Ally and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal370
Morris, J.1. This was a suit to set aside certain decrees on the ground of fraud. One Mahomed Wasil died in January 1878, leaving a widow, a daughter, and two married sisters. The two latter did not reside in the family-house, but the house with the other property of the deceased remained in the possession of his widow and daughter. Subsequently, and in the same year, three suits were brought by different plaintiffs against the widow and daughter to recover certain sums borrowed by the deceased, and in execution of the decrees obtained in them, the property left by the deceased was sold and purchased by the defendants Kamdar Ali and Asgar Ali. The sisters, the plaintiffs in the present case, were not parties to these suits, and the claim now put forward by them is--1st, that the decrees were fraudulent, and 2nd, that, even in the absence of fraud, their shares, amounting to six annas, could not pass to the purchaser. They ask for a declaration to this effect. The daughter also seeks to...
Giridhari Singh Vs. Maharaja Luchmessur Singh Bahadur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-10-1882
Reported in: 2Ind.Cas.646
1. The plaintiff respondent brought the suit out of which this appeal arises to recover from the defendants (one of whom only appeals) the sum of Rs. 19,665-13-75 with interest thereon to the close of the year 1879, that sum being the amount of Road Cess paid by the plaintiff on account of certain villages held by the defendants within the Raj of the plaintiff. The plaint alleges that these villages which in fact constitute the pergunndh Chandi were granted to the father of the defendants for his maintenance by a former Maharajah, and are in defendants' possession. It further alleges that the Maharajah or the Raj has hitherto paid the revenue due to Government on account of the villages, realising the same from the defendants or their father. It further alleges that the Raj has paid Road Cess on the villages ever since the introduction of that impost which was imposed under a Local Act No. X of 1871, Bengal Council, and that the defendants are justly liable for the amount now claimed.2...
In Re: Bhagabuti Churn Bhuttacharjee Chowdhry and Vs. Bisheshwar Sen a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-09-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal367
McDonell, J.1. This case has been argued at very considerable length, and a large amount of irrelevant matter has, we think, been introduced into the argument. The facts are very simple. The appellant purchased, on the 21st July 1880, at a sale held in execution of a money-decree. That sale was not confirmed till the 19th February 1881. Meanwhile, the same property was sold, on the 20th January 1881, in execution of a decree obtained upon a mortgage-bond, by which the property so sold was pledged, that decree declaring the lien and authorizing the mortgagee to enforce it. The appellant claims to come in under Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and he questions the regularity of the proceedings under which the sale of the 20th January 1881 took place.2. Now, the only question which has to be decided is, whether the appellant, who had been the successful bidder at the sale of 21st July 1880, but the sale to whom was not confirmed till the 19th February 1881, can be said to be, w...
Sree Lal Jha and ors. Vs. Forbes
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal365
Cunningham, J.1. As to the point of limitation, we are not prepared to hold that the lower Courts were wrong in deciding the point in favour of the plaintiffs. Looking to the course of decisions of this Court we think it is clear, that Section 27 of Beng. Act VIII of 1869 applies only to such suits for possession as the Court is asked to decide irrespectively of any title, but simply on the ground that the plaintiffs have been ousted otherwise than by legal means. In the present suit, the plaintiffs allege a particular right, say that the defendant brought his ejectment suits without the knowledge of most of them, and pray for an adjudication of their right and for possession. We are of opinion that, under the rulings of this Court, we are bound to hold that this suit does not come within the rule of limitation contained in Section 27. [The rest of the judgment is not material for the purposes of this report.]...
Muddon Mohun Lall Vs. Holloway
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal446
Cunningham, J.1. The position of things is therefore as follows:2. The plaintiff has, by purchase, become lessor, as to an eight-anna interest of a lease by which the lessees are entitled to grow indigo till October 1881, and the lessor is bound to assent to indigo being grown. As to a five-anna interest, the plaintiff has become lessor of a lease by which the lessee's right of growing indigo extends only to 1880.3. It is admitted that indigo can be grown on land, which is the subject of co-ownership, only by the consent of all the co-owners.4. It is urged in appeal that the plaintiff being bound as lessor of the eight-annas interest to assent to the cultivation of indigo and receiving consideration for that assent, cannot, in his capacity as lessor of the five-annas interest refuse his assent, and invoke the aid of the Court to have the cultivation stopped, and this assent given in respect of the eight-annas interest rendered unavailing.5. The Advocate-General, in support of the plain...
In Re: Sreenath Kur. and Vs. Sreenath Kur.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal450
O'Kinealy, J.1. We have had some trouble in dealing with this case, owing to the manner in which it has been tried by the lower Court. On the preliminary inquiry before the Deputy Magistrate, the proceedings were allowed to cover a very large number of transactions. The prisoner was committed for trial on fifty-five charges, and with other parsons who were accused of having more or less assisted him in obtaining money from the Government treasury. These irregularities were perceived by the Sessions Judge; but instead of exercising the powers conferred on him by Sections 445 and 446 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and then proceeding to hold separate trials, he adopted the somewhat unusual course of informing the prisoner that he would acquit him of all the charges except those already mentioned, and that to these the trial would be confined. Having come to that determination, he failed, unfortunately, to act up to his own convictions; and, under the excuse of giving Government an op...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »