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.
Dwarka Nath Bysack and ors. Vs. Juggut Mohinee Dossee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal582
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case sues as reversionary heir of one Rajkisto Bysack to recover possession of a house and land in the town of Calcutta, to which he claims to have become entitled, on the death of the widow and heir of Rajkisto Bysack.2. The widow's estate in this property was sold under an execution against her so long ago as the year 1833, and purchased by a gentleman named Templeton; and from Templeton it passed into the hands of several persons in succession, the last of whom is the present defendant. One of those persons, many years ago, built a house upon this land, which is known by the name of 40, Shibtollah Street, and the only question in this appeal is, whether the plaintiff, who is admittedly entitled to the land, is entitled to the house also.3. The defendant contends that the house is hers; and that she is entitled, at the option of the plaintiff, either to be paid by him a fair price for the house, or to be allowed a reasonable time, after the...
Bradley Vs. Jameson
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal580
Cunningham, J.1. We think that the Magistrate, having, on the 25th August 1881, set aside his order of June 7th, 1881, and struck the case off the file, had no power to revive it (without a fresh proceeding) by his order of 6th September, and that he had no power, under Section 518 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to pass a perpetual injunction: see Gopi Mohun Mullick v. Taramoni Chowdrani I.L.R. 5 Cal. 7. Orders under Section 518 not being judicial proceedings, we have no power to deal with the present case under Section 297; but we infer from the judgment in In the matter of the Petition of Chunder Nath Sen I.L.R., 2 Cal., 293, that the order being, in our opinion, illegal, we can deal with it under the Charter. We, therefore, set it aside....
Chunder Coomar Mitter Vs. Sib Sundari Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal631
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is a suit for enhancement, and three questions have been raised by the defendant: first, that no notice of enhancement was served; secondly, that the rent was not enhanceable; and thirdly, that there were no grounds for enhancing it.2. The Munsif found that notice had been served; but as to the other points,--namely, whether the rent was enhanceable, and whether there were any grounds for enhancing it,--he found them against the plaintiff. For the purpose of proving that the rent was not enhanceable, the defendant relied upon a decree which was passed in a suit for enhancement brought by the same plaintiff against the same defendant in 1875. In that suit there were two issues: first, whether there was a proper notice of enhancement; and secondly, whether the rent was enhanceable. The Munsif found that the service of notice was sufficient, but he also found that the rent could not be enhanced. Upon these findings, there were two appeals to the Subordinate Judg...
Akbar Ali Vs. JezuddIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal399
Richard Garth, C.J.1. If this were really a suit for a declaratory decree only, I should hold that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it.2. The case of Ram Dhun Biswas v. Kefal Biswas 10 W.R. 141; s.c. 1 B.L.R. S.N. 10 decided by Sir Barnes Peacock and Mr. Justice Mitter, J., is perfectly good law at the present time. It has never, so far as I am aware, been seriously questioned; and the case of Nathu Ganesh v. Kalidas Umed I.L.R. 2 Bom. 365 is plainly distinguishable from it. Indeed, Sir Michael Westropp, in page 367, very carefully recognizes the distinction. A man whose goods have been taken and sold in execution has a right to bring a suit in the Small Cause Court for the recovery of those goods against any one into whose hands they have come. But a judgment-creditor cannot sue in the Small Cause Court to have it declared that goods are the property of the judgment-debtor. In the first case, the plaintiff sues to recover his own property; in the other, he asks f...
Chundee Churn Dutt Vs. Eduljee Cowasjee Bijnee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal678
Garth, C.J.1. Having heard these questions properly argued, I am satisfied that, in the case of Roop Chund Pundit v. Madhub Chunder Bose ante p. 681 n; Mr. Justice Pontifex and myself were wrong in holding that, as a matter of law, the Official Gazette was the only proper medium of publication under Section 264 of the Contract Act. I discussed this subject with Mr. Justice Pontifex before he left the Court, and I am authorised by him to say, that he quite agrees with me in so thinking.2. In that case, unfortunately, we had not the advantage of hearing counsel; and we rather took it for granted, without sufficiently considering the relative character of the two publications, that the Official Gazette in Calcutta was, in most material respects, the same sort of paper as the 'London Gazette' in England. But in fact this is not so. The 'London Gazette' has not only a large and general circulation in the commercial world, but it is the usual and now almost the invariable mode of advertising...
Hemangini Dasi Vs. NobIn Chand Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal788
Field, J.1. The position of the parties in this case will appear from the genealogical tree to be found at page 4 of the paper-book. Hurro Mohun Ghose, the testator, died in Aghran 1270, that is, November 1863. He left a will executed on the 4th Assar 1268 (17th June 1861). As to the factum of this will there is no dispute before us, and the present case is concerned solely with the construction to be put upon the paragraphs of this instrument. Hurro Mohun had two sons, Shyam Chand and Nobin Chand, and three daughters, named Troilukhya Moni, Gobind Moni, and Nistarini,2. Of the two sons, Shyam Chand died in 1257 (1850), during his father's lifetime, and left three sons,--viz., Aubinash Chunder, Gopal Chunder, and Atul Chunder, all three of whom are mentioned and provided for in the will. Aubinash Chunder died in 1271 (1864), about a year after his grandfather, and the plaintiff in the present case, Hemangini, is his only daughter and heiress. Nobin Chand survived his father Hurro Mohun...
Rajroop Kooer Vs. Bhekhan Dobey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal912
Mitter, J.1. The lower Appellate Court dealt with the case apparently on two grounds: (1) that there was a verbal contract to pay the judgment-debt by instalments, and the suit would lie on that contract; (2) that a fresh cause of action arose on defendant's failure to pay the contract instalments.2. The defendant appeals on the ground that the lower Appellate Court has omitted to try the question of limitation, and contends that limitation ran before 29th June 1878, and that, even allowing plaintiff the time occupied in the execution-proceedings, which terminated on that day, the suit is barred.3. It certainly appears to us that the Subordinate Judge's decree is erroneous on his own view of the case. If there was a cause of action on defendant's failure to pay the instalments, then certainly the suit was not brought in time from the 14th August 1875, the date of the first instalment, and the claim should have been reduced by the amount of that, and possibly of other instalments also.4...
Thakoor Purshad Vs. Hurbans Sahye and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal209
Mitter, J.1. It has been contended that, if the review be granted on a particular ground, we are bound to re-hear the whole case under Section 630 of the Code of Civil Procedure; but the words 'or make such order in regard to the re-hearing as it thinks fit,' in the section in question, leave it to our discretion either to re-hear the whole case or any particular point that seems to us fit. The observation of the Judicial Committee in Bhugwandeen Doobey v. Myna Baee 11 Moore's I.A. 499 supports this view. As we have re-heard the case with reference to the question of share, I am of opinion that we are in a position to make the final decree without another hearing. Our decree, therefore, should be altered as directed above. The petitioners are entitled to recover costs of this hearing, which I would assess at Rs. 200.Maclean, J.2. I find with regret that I am of a different opinion from my learned and more experienced colleague upon one of the points raised in this application,-namely, ...
Raj Chunder Chatterjee Vs. Modhoosoodun Mookerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-01-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal395
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff, obtained a decree against the defendant No. 1 personally, with a declaration of a lien to the amount of the debt on the mortgaged property. In executing that decree he was opposed by the defendants, Nos. 2 and 3, who had purchased, before the institution of this suit, in execution of another mortgage-decree obtained on an unregistered bond, under which this very property was mortgaged. Their objection was allowed, and the plaintiff has, accordingly, brought the present suit to establish his right as against the defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The date of the adverse order under Section 246 of Act VIII of 1859 is 26th July 1877, and the present suit has been brought on the 29th March 1879. The lower Courts have held, that the plaintiff 's claim is barred by limitation under Article 11, Schedule ii of the Limitation Act, XV of 1877.2. It is contended in appeal that, inasmuch as, under the decisions of this Court in Matonginy Dossee v. Chowdhry Junmunjoy Mullick 25 W...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›