Kolkata Court March 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.
Shurroop Chunder Gooho Vs. Ameerrunnissa Khatoon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-22-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal703
Field, J.1. In this case the property, in respect of which execution was sought, consisted of a single revenue-paying estate, part of which lies within the district of Backergunge and part within the district of Furreedpore. The decree, affecting the whole of this property, was obtained in the Backergunge district: and the suit having been instituted after the new Civil Procedure Code, Act X of 1877, came into force, Section 19 of that Act was applicable to the case. The decree-holder applied to have the whole of the revenue-paying estate sold in execution of his decree. The Subordinate Judge rejected this application in so far as that portion of the revenue-paying estate situate within the Furreedpore district is concerned, and he apparently allowed the execution to proceed so far as concerns that portion of the property situate within the Backergunge district. It is now contended in appeal before us, that the Subordinate Judge ought to have allowed execution to proceed in his Court a...
Jonmenjoy Mullick Vs. Dassmoney Dassee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-20-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal700
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We thought it right in this case to grant a review of judgment in consequence of the Full Bench decision in another suit between the same parties and upon the same subject-matter. The Full Bench case is reported in I.L.R., 7 Cal., 714, and the circumstances under which this suit was brought will be found stated at length in the report of the former judgment in I.L.R., 3 Cal., 363; s. c., 1 C.L.R., 446.2. On the 26th August 1868, the ancestor of the defendant No. 2 borrowed money from the husband of defendant No. 1, upon a simple money-bond. On the 10th January 1869, the same person borrowed money from the plaintiff upon a specially registered mortgage-bond, which hypothecated two estates for payment of the loan. On the 22nd February 1871, the plaintiff obtained a money decree only on this mortgage-bond. On the 25th February 1871, the husband of defendant No. 1, in execution of a decree which had been previously obtained by him for his debt, bought at auction the r...
Nilakant Banerjee Vs. Chunder Nath Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal690
Cunningham, J.1. It is conceded that, for the purposes of the present argument, the decree against Ashutosh's estate, of the 29th August 1866, did not constitute a charge on the property, and consequently that the commencement of the defendant's title cannot date earlier than 24th December 1866,--i.e., subsequent to the plaintiff's mortgage, and that consequently the interest which the defendants purchased was subject to the plaintiff's mortgage; and, therefore, that the independent title set up in the mortgage-suit, which led to its being dismissed as against them, cannot be made out.2. The question therefore is, whether the original Court is right in considering that the defendants, having got themselves struck out of the plaintiff's mortgage suit on the strength of a title independent of the mortgagors, and not having chosen to assort their rights as holding under the mortgagors, are at liberty in the present suit to set up those rights and to claim to retain the mortgaged-property ...
Jantoo Vs. Radha Canto Doss
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal515
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I have had great doubt about this question. But having regard to what appears to be the general opinion of the Judges, and also to the inconvenience that would arise, if the stamp-fee upon such appeals were to vary according to the nature of the issues raised in each case, I think it will be advisable to order that a uniform fee of Rs. 10 should be charged in all such cases....
In Re: Petition of Munshi Sheikh and ors. and Vs. Munshi Sheikh and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal616
Cunningham, J.1. We are of opinion that there has been no misdirection in this case. The main ground urged before us in appeal is, that the confessions of two of the accused were recorded in a simple narrative form instead of in the shape of questions and answers. If we could infer from the character of the confessions or from the circumstances of the case, that this mode of recording the confessions had resulted in any prejudice to the prisoners, we should of course deem it necessary to direct a new trial. But there is nothing from which we can draw this inference; and we, therefore, think that, having regard to the concluding paragraph of Section 346,1 we are not at liberty to hold that there has been a misdirection, merely because the Judge allowed these confessions to go to the jury.2. With regard to the accused Munshi Sheikh, the question does not arise, because the Judge told the jury that, as far as he was concerned, they must, before convicting him, satisfy themselves that ther...
Thakoordass Gossamy Vs. Gopeekishen Gossamy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal807
Field, J.1. The only point in this case is what period of limitation is applicable to a suit brought to enforce a palla, or turn of worshipping an idol.2. The lower Court have followed the decision of Eshan Chunder Roy v. Monmohini Dassi I.L.R. 4 Cal. 683 which decided that a palla, or right to worship an idol in turn, is a periodically recurring right within the meaning of Article 131 of the second schedule of the present Limitation Act, XV of 1877.3. It has been contended before us, that this article is not applicable, and that the article which ought to be applied to a case of this kind is Article 120, which provides six years' limitation for suits for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the second schedule. We are unable to assent to this contention, and, as at present advised, we see no sufficient ground for differing from the decision in Eshan Chunder Roy v. Monmohini Dassi I.L.R. 4 Cal. 683. The appeal will, therefore, be dismissed with costs....
Kalidhun Chuttapadhya and anr. Vs. Shiba Nath Chuttapadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal483
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In the year 1272, the plaintiffs brought a suit against their uncle, the defendant Shiba Nath Chatterjee, who had been the manager for many years of certain family property in which they were co-sharers. In that suit the plaintiff Kalidhun, who was of age, acted on behalf of himself and of his brother, the plaintiff Krishna Dhun, who was a minor. The object of the suit was to obtain from the defendant an account of the property from the year 1262 to 1277, Fasli; but from the form of the plaint it seemed doubtful whether the plaintiffs meant to sue for the account itself, or only for a declaration of their right to it. The stamp-fee on the plaint was Rs. 10, which would have been the proper stamp if the plaintiffs only sued for a declaration of right; but the defendant took the objection, that the stamp was insufficient, because the, plaintiffs had in their prayer apparently asked for an account.2. An issue was raised upon this point; but the Subordinate Judge cons...
Kishori Lal Roy Vs. Sharut Chunder Mozumdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal593
Garth, C.J.1. I think that the question referred should be answered in the negative. Having regard both to the practice of the Courts and to the language of the Legislature, it seems to me, that, in this country, the policy of the law has always been to allow a plaintiff to enforce a claim for possession of land and for mesne profits, either in one suit or two, as he may think proper; but at the same time to induce him, if there is no reason to the contrary, to dispose of his whole claim in one suit, only.2. And there seems much good sense in this policy; because in the generality of such cases, the plaintiff's right to mesne profits follows his right to possession, in the same way that in a money claim, a right to interest follows the right to the principal sum. The Court which decides the question of possession has generally all the materials before it to decide at the same time the question of mesne profits; and it would be only entailing both upon the Court and the parties unnecess...
Dataram Roy Vs. NaraIn Chunder Chuckerbutty
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal597
Prinsep, J.1. In the case before us, the plaintiff, after being for some years in possession of lands conveyed to him under an unregistered deed, the registration of which, owing to the small value of the lands, was optional, has been ejected. About three months afterwards his vendor has sold again to a third person under a registered deed of sale, and in suing to recover possession, plaintiff finds himself opposed by this second purchaser, who maintains that under his registered conveyance, his title is preferable to that of plaintiff under an unregistered deed of sale. The Subordinate Judge in appeal held that 'it was a settled point of law that an unregistered kobala supported by possession shall prevail over a registered kobala without possession.'2. The second appeal was heard originally by a Division Bench consisting of Cunningham J., and myself, and in consequence of a difference of opinion was re-heard by us sitting with Wilson, J. We had determined to remand the case for retri...
The Empress Vs. Keshub Mohajan and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal985
Pontifex, J.1. The question whether the territory of Mohurbhunj is within the limits of British India is a question of evidence.2. There is nothing to show whether the Mahrattas exercised direct authority over this territory, or whether they treated it merely as tributary. From its situation and character, however, the probability would seem, to be that the Mahrattas only exacted tribute from it. Nor does the cession by the Mahrattas to the East India Company throw any further light upon the matter. If the Mahrattas had only the rights of a paramount power, the East India Company could, under the cession, gain no higher rights.3. In this state of circumstances the Regulations of 1804 and 1805 were passed, the Government being probably in doubt as to what rights they actually took from the Mahrattas. Nothing was done under the Regulation of 1804 (which applies only to the territory ceded by the Mahrattas) to this particular territory. And the Regulation of 1805 seems to me to show that ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »