Kolkata Court April 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.
Bonode Mohini ChowdhraIn Vs. Sharat Chunder Dey Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal837
Field, J.1. This was a suit to recover land, and was brought against a sole defendant. That sole defendant died on the 5th September 1880, after the institution of the suit. On the 8h November 1880, that is, sixty-three days after his death, an application, which purported to be made under Section 368 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was made to the Subordinate Judge for the purpose of having the son and heir of the deceased defendant made a defendant in his stead. On the 22nd November 1880, the Subordinate Judge, considering this application out of time, because it was not made within the sixty days allowed by Article 171B of the second schedule of the Limitation Act, XV of 1877, rejected it, and made an order that the suit do abate. On the same day, that is, the 22nd November 1880, a further application was made to the Subordinate Judge that this order, directing the suit to abate, might be set aside, on the ground that the plaintiff was prevented by sufficient cause from applying wit...
Hridoy NaraIn Vs. Sheo Sunkur Sahoy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal143
Mitter, J.1. This is a suit for the recovery of damages from the defendant under the following circumstances: A ticca patta was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff on the 13th Shrabun 1282, stipulating that the plaintiff should remain in possession of the property leased from 1283 to 1293 on a fixed rent, which was to be applied to the payment of Government revenue, the interest upon the zurpeshgi-money, and other charges. The possession of the leasehold property not having been given to the plaintiff, a suit was brought to recover possession, and a decree was passed in his favour on the 19th of December 1877. On the 2nd of June 1879, corresponding with the 27th Joist 1286, a suit for the profits of the ticca lease for the year 1283 was brought by the plaintiff against the defendant, and a decree was obtained. The present suit was brought for the profits of the ticca for the years 1284 to 1286. An objection was taken in the lower Court that this suit was barred by the ...
Opnit Misser and ors. Vs. NaraIn Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal304
Mitter, J.1. The land in dispute in the possession of the defendant in this case amounts to 13 bighas out of an area of 78 bighas. The whole of the 78 bighas at the time of the thakbust in the year 1864, was the subject-matter of a dispute between the Maharajah of Domraon on the one hand, and Dewan Ram Jewan Singh and Ram Coomar Singh on the other. The former claimed it as a part of Chuk Nowrunga, which is in the district of Gazeepore, and the latter as part of Baharwar in the district of Shahabad. The land in question was entered in the survey map as part of Baharwar.2. The plaintiffs seek to evict the defendant after serving him with a notice to quit.3. In September 1876 two suits were brought (one by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 4, and the other by the plaintiff No. 5), to recover possession of the whole of the aforesaid 78 bighas against the present defendant and several other persons. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendants were trespassers, who had, under the color of so...
Bhadeshwar Chowdhry and ors. Vs. Gaurikant Nath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal834
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case, an objection that was made in the Court below by the defendant was that the property was undervalued, and that, consequently, the plaintiffs had brought their suit in the wrong Court. That question was gone into by the first Court, which found that the property was undervalued, and that, consequently, the suit should be dismissed.2. Upon that the plaintiffs appealed, apparently upon the ground that the finding of the first Court was wrong upon the question of valuation. That was a point which, of course, went to the merits of the question. But they also contended that the first Court, finding as it did, ought not to have dismissed the suit altogether; but should, under Section 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure, have returned the plaint to the plaintiffs to be presented to the proper Court.3. The lower Appellate Court found, that the first Court was right in saying that the suit was undervalued; and the Subordinate Judge also held, that the lower Cour...
Bhoggomanto Poddar and ors. Vs. Mudun Mohun Poddar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal923
Prinsep, J.1. The order of the lower Appellate Court remanding this case is clearly contrary to the law. The Subordinate Judge seems to have thought that, because the issues wore not correctly framed, he was competent to draw up fresh issues and to send the case back to the first Court for retrial. No doubt the issues thus drawn up are more complete than those on which the case was tried in the first Court; but from the materials before us, it is impossible to say that there was any necessity for thus expanding the case, or that the parties before the first Court, when the case went to trial, were not fully aware of the points which they were bound, each of them, to prove. We would point out to the Subordinate Judge that if, on trying the appeal, he was of opinion that the evidence on the record was not sufficient to enable him to decide all the points arising out of the case, he should have kept the appeal on his own file and dealt with it in the manner provided by Section 566 of the ...
Umrao Begum and ors. Vs. Mahbuban and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-07-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal721
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that these appeals are chargeable with a full stamp as in the case of appeals from decrees. They clearly do not come within Article 11, Clause (b), Schedule ii of Act VII of 1870, because that article does not apply to orders which have the force of a decree....
Assrup Koer and ors. Vs. Luchmi NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal43
Mitter, J.1. We do not think that there is any ground for interference in this case. The Courts below have found that the plaintiff 's husband was separate from the defendant No. 2, and that, after her husband's death, she was in possession of the disputed property until dispossessed. There is no ground upon which this finding can be questioned in second appeal. We must, therefore, accept it as correct. These two questions of law have been argued before us: 1st, that the plaintiff 's suit is barred because a previous suit brought by her was dismissed. It appears that the previous suit referred to was dismissed not upon the merits, but upon the ground that the form in which that action was brought was not the correct form. She had alleged that she was in possession of the property in dispute, the Court found that she was not in possession, and simply upon this ground that suit was dismissed; therefore it cannot be said that that decision is any bar to the present suit under Section 13 o...
Welds Vs. Khetter Mohun Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal719
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff, as a manager appointed under Section 243 of Act VIII of 1859, has sued for rent at an enhanced rate after service of notice of enhancement under the Rent Law. The objection taken has throughout been as to his power as a manager to issue such notice of enhancement. The Munsif properly held, that 'the Court that appoints this manager has no greater powers than those which the statute-law confers on it, so that the manager himself cannot possess more powers than this.' The Munsif accordingly held, that the plaintiff had no authority to issue the notice of enhancement. The District Judge, in appeal, considered that the manager stands exactly in the same position as a gomashta or administrator. In this view of the law he held, under the authority of two cases which apply to gomashtas, that the manager had rightly exercised his powers. It appears to us that the view taken by the Munsif is the correct view. A manager under Section 243 is, in our opinion, appointed...
Hakim Khan Vs. Gool Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-04-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal826
O'Kinealy, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, who is the appellant before us, sued for possession of property which he said formed part of a joint family property. The defendants denied the title of the plaintiff, and asserted that the plaintiff 's claim was barred by the law of limitation, In the first Court, the Munsif, it seems to us, dealt with the case on a proper basis. He said: 'It must be borne in mind that the parties to the case are Mahomedans, and the presumption of Hindu law in favour of joint acquisition and joint family does not arise in this case.' He, therefore, proceeded to deal with the case as a case of partnership between ordinary individuals not subject to Hindu laws and customs, and he dismissed the suit both in regard to the question of title and the point of limitation. In appeal the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the lower Court was wrong, and applying the principles of Hindu law relating to joint families to the case, he decided that, inasmuch as ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›