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.
Tariny Kanth Lahiry Chowdry Vs. Chowdrani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal546
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case purchased, on the 6th September 1871, the right, title, and interest of one Goloke Nath Chowdry in a twelve ganda share of an estate. Subsequent to his purchase, he applied under the provisions of Beng. Act VII of 1876 to be registered on the Collectorate as proprietor of this twelve-ganda share. He was opposed by the defendant in the present suit, Sreemutty Chowdrani, and the result of the registration proceedings was, that the plaintiff's name was registered for nine gandas only, and the defendant's name was registered for the remaining three gandas. In consequence of this order of the registration authorities, the present suit has been instituted, and the plaintiff asks in his plaint to have his title declared to the three gandas, for which the defendant's name has been registered, and to have the Collectorate register amended accordingly.2. In order to understand the merits of the controversy between the parties, it will be necessary to go bac...
Nijabutoolla and ors. Vs. Wazir Ali
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal910
Cunningham, J.1. We think that the proper interpretation to be put upon Section 5 of the Limitation Act, considered along with Section 6, is that, except as defined in Section 6, the general provisions of the Limitation Act are applicable to cases for which periods of limitation are specially provided by local or special loss; and that therefore Section 5 of the Limitation Act ought to have been allowed to operate in the present case.2. We accordingly set aside the decisions of the lower Courts, and remand the case to the first Court for a decision on the merits.3. Costs will abide the result.Tottenham, J. 4. I desire simply to add that Section 5 is of general application to all suits notwithstanding anything contained in Section 6....
Mahomed Mobaruck and ors. Vs. Joytara Dassee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal976
Field, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case sue to recover possession of 950 hals of land, consisting of two plots. Plot No. 1, according to the allegation contained in the plaint, comprises 850 hals, and is said to form the southern portion of Thak No. 2527, and to be known as Mouza or part of Mouza Rautpara. Plot No. 2 comprises 100 hals, and is said to form the southern portion of Thak No. 2581, and to constitute the Mouza or part of Mouza Bhoti Dowlutpore. The plaintiffs' case is, that these two plots and these two mouzas appertain to Taluk Mahomed Amzad and are their property, and they allege that they have been in possession thereof. The plaint does not set out the title of the plaintiffs in this property or the manner in which they came to acquire that title. With the plaint two thak maps were filed. One of these is the thak map of Gungadhurpore, and is apparently undated. The other is a thak map of Mouza Dowlutpore, and bears date 1861. The plaint gives no boundaries of these two p...
Umesh Chunder Roy Vs. Raj Bullubh Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal279
Tottenham, J.1. The lower Appellate Court, confirming the order of the first Court, has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The Judge has applied the rule of one year, and has held that, because the suit was not brought within one year from 1869, when the claim to this property preferred in the execution department by the plaintiff's mother was rejected, the present suit is barred.2. It seems that, in 1869, when, in execution of a rent-decree, this tenure was attached as belonging to one Rohini Dossee, the plaintiff's mother preferred a claim under Section 246 of the Old Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that she had purchased the tenure from Rohini Dossee, and the Court found that the purchase had been made after the attachment had taken place, and that, therefore, the alienation was void, and accordingly rejected the claim. But it appears that no sale was held, because the judgment-debtor paid off the amount of the decree. The effect of that ...
Brojo Nath Mookhopadhya Vs. BepIn Behari Bundopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal357
Field, J.1. The facts of this case are a little complicated, but when they are understood, we think that no real difficulty will be experienced in disposing of the points which have been argued before us. Bhairab Chandra Haldar and Shib Chandra Haldar were uterine brothers. Bhairab Chandra died first, leaving a widow Lukhimoni, who died in Aughran 1271 (29th November 1864). Shib Chandra died after the death of Bhairab Chandra and before the death of Lukhimoni, and was succeeded by a son Doorga Coomar Haldar. This son subsequently died in Pous 1248 (12th January 1842), leaving him surviving two widows, Komal Padma Dabi and Prosonnomoyi. Doorga Coomar gave his widows a power to adopt a son; and in execution of this power Shukmoy was adopted by the younger widow, Prosonnomoyi. On the 16th September 1873, Sukhmoy Haldar borrowed Rs. 3,000 from one Radha Mohun Mondol, and as security for the payment of this amount, he mortgaged an eight-anna share of the property specified in schedule A ann...
Chunder Coomar Mookerjee and ors. Vs. Shama Churn Dey and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal677
Garth, C.J., and Pontifex, J.1. In which they agreed with the Court below for substantially the same reasons, first, that the plaintiffs had failed to prove a title to the soil of the lane, and could be considered as entitled only to a right of way over it; secondly, that the defendants had a right of way over the land and a right to use the lane for the purpose of carrying away nightsoil from their premises in such way as would least affect the plaintiffs in the enjoyment of their premises; and thirdly, that this suit had been rightly dismissed as against the defendants against whom it had been dismissed in the lower Court. But being unable to agree with the Court below as regarded the injunction granted against the appealing defendants, their Lordships reversed so much of the decree as granted the injunction, and dismissed the suit against all the defendants....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›