Kolkata Court May 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.
Romesh Chunder Bundopadhya and anr. Vs. Bandey Karim and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal65
Field, J.1. The question in this case is whether, when a Court, upon an application for execution, has decided that the execution is barred by limitation, and that order has become final in consequence of no appeal-having been preferred therefrom, such order will, upon a subsequent application made for execution of the same decree, operate as a bar to execution. The facts of the present case are, that, on the 5th of March 1881, the Subordinate Judge made the following order: 'It appears that the case is barred by limitation. The decree was passed on the 27th of July 1874, and this petition of execution states that an application for execution was made in 1878. Now it is clear that that application must have been made more than three years after the decree was passed. It is not shown that any step was taken to enforce the decree in the interval so as to save it from being barred by limitation. Case dismissed with costs.' A review of this order was applied for on the 7th April 1881; and,...
Dintarini Dabi Vs. Doibo Chunder Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal880
Field, J.1. This was an application under Section 234 of the Indian Succession Act X of 1865, for revocation of probate of a will granted on the 8th December 1876. The will purports to have been executed by Rojoni Kant Roy Chowdhry, the late husband of the petitioner, Dintarini Dabi. Jogesh Chunder Roy Chowdhry, the brother of Rojoni Kant, obtained probate of the will, and himself died a few years afterwards. He executed a will before his death, and one Doibo Chunder Roy obtained probate of that will. The present petitioner, Dintarini, subsequently applied for a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860, and was opposed by Doibo Roy, who, as executor of Jogesh Chunder Roy, relied upon the grant of probate of Rojoni Kant's will which Jogesh Chunder had obtained. The present petitioner alleges that it was on this occasion that she first became aware of the alleged existence of the will said to have been executed by her late husband; and she thereupon made an application to the District Judge, ...
issur Chunder Nath Vs. Kali Churn Nath and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal883
Prinsep, J.1. We see no reason to interfere. We agree with the judgment of another Division Court in the case of Shonai Paramanick 1 C.L.R., 486, that the Magistrate having satisfied himself (as in the case now before us) that there was no cause for acting under Section 521, was at liberty to let the matter drop....
Nobo Gopal Sircar Vs. Srinath Bundopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal877
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case purchased, at a sale in execution of a common money-decree, the judgment-debtor's interest in a certain patni. The defendant holds a darpatni within this patni. Before the plaintiff's purchase, the patni was about to be brought to sale under Reg. VIII of 1819 for arrears of rent for the last half-year of 1284. The defendant, as darpatnidar, prevented the sale by paying the amount of arrears of the patni rent. This amount so paid considerably exceeded all the darpatni rent then due by the defendant to the patnidar. The present suit has been brought to recover the rent of 1285, and the defendant contends that he is entitled to deduct from the rent so claimed the amount so paid into Court by him under the Regulation in excess of the darpatni rent due up to the end of 1284.2. Both the lower Courts have admitted this contention, and it is now argued before us that, having regard to 'the express language of Clause 4, Section 13 of Reg. VIII of 1819,' su...
Gauri Prosad Koondoo Vs. Reily
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal112
Prinsep, J.1. The point we are called upon to decide in this appeal is, whether the plaint having stated the amount of mesne profits claimed at a certain sum of money, and the decree having directed the amount to be ascertained in execution, the plaintiff, decree-holder, is estopped from claiming any excess of the amount stated in his plaint.2. As an authority for the affirmative of this proposition the case of Baboojan Jha v. Byjnath Jha I.L.R. 6 Cal. 472; S.C 7 C.L.R. 539 has been cited. We have consulted the learned Judges who passed that judgment, and we are authorized by them to state that they did not then intend to enunciate any general rule for adoption in such cases. We are therefore at liberty to deal with this case on its own merits.3. It appears to us that-as stated by Dwarkanath Mitter, J. in the case of Pearee Soonduree Dossee v. Eshan Chunder Bose 16 W.R. 302. the decision in the original suit having declared the amount of mesne profits should be determined in execution,...
Anathnath Deb Vs. Poreshnath Mukerji and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-11-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal265
R. Couch, J.1. The question in this appeal, which is from a decision of the High Court at Calcutta on an appeal from the District Court, is stated by the learned Chief Justice in giving the judgment of the High Court, in which he says: 'The point upon which, in our opinion, this case should be decided is rather of a peculiar nature. The plaintiff is the zamindar of a share in a property called lot Shah Alumpur, and he also claims to be the darpatnidar of a portion of the same property. In his character of darpatnidar, he brings this suit against the defendant No. 1, Bistu Chandra Rai, as ijardar of part of the estate for rent and for road-cess The defendant resists the claim upon the ground that Poreshnath, the defendant No. 2, is the real owner of the darpatni; and the defendant No. 2 has intervened for the purpose of supporting his title to the rent as against the plaintiff. It appears that some time ago, in the year 1259 (A.D. 1852), one Ishan Chandra purchased, and was the undoubte...
Dokouri Chunder Thakoor Vs. Charu Surnokar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal956
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiff brought a suit to obtain a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from using a path which runs over the land and premises admittedly belonging to the plaintiff. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court says, that it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff's premises and the defendant's premises, which adjoin, originally belonged to the same owner, and it appears that the plaintiff and defendant obtained their respective tenements by purchase more than twenty years ago. When I say the defendant' I include the defendant's predecessor in title, because, although the defendant himself purchased seventeen or eighteen years ago, he is for the purpose of this suit entitled to add the time during which his immediate predecessor, Gya Nath, held the particular tenement. The defendant's case was, that the two tenements belonged to the same owner; that this owner constructed the ghat and the path now used by him (defendant), and that this ghat an...
Tariny Debee Vs. Shama Churn Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal954
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is a patnidar, and the rent payable by him to the zamindar is Rs. 922. The defendant is darpatnidar, and the rent payable by him to the patnidar is Rs. 1,022. Under the terms of the dar-patni kabuliat the darpatnidar is to pay the zamindar's rent,--i.e., the head rent. It thus appears that the actual amount payable by the darpatnidar to the putnidar for each year is Rs. 100.2. The present suit is brought to recover the sum of Rs. 3,133-15, alleged arrears of the darpatni rent, with interest. This amount has been obtained by making an account extending over the years after 1274 (1867). In this account the amounts paid by the darpatnidar, as well to the patnidar direct as to the zamindar, are credited to the oldest arrears of the entire amount of darpatni rent.3. The essential question in the case is, as the District Judge says, a question of appropriation of payments. The District Judge is of opinion that what the parties intended was, that the pay...
The Empress Vs. Ram Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal875
Prinsep, J.1. This reference has been made because the Cantonment Magistrate, who tried the case, and the District Magistrate, are of opinion that the Sessions Judge, as an Appellate Court, has improperly reduced the sentence passed.2. The powers of the District Magistrate, in referring cases to this Court as a Court of Revision, are described in Sections 295, 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 295 declares that the District Magistrate 'may at all times call for and examine the record of any Court subordinate to him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to, the legality of any sentence or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceedings of such subordinate Court'; and Section 296 adds that, if the District Magistrate 'is of opinion that the judgment or order is contrary to law, or that the punishment is too severe or inadequate, he may report the proceedings for the orders of the High Court.' But Section 296 is controlled by Section 295, and it was certainly nev...
Ram Churn Karmokar Vs. Mukhoda Soondury Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal871
Prinsep, J.1. The circumstances out of which this suit has arisen are as follows: In 1874, one Prem Bibi obtained a money-decree against one Muddun Karmokar for Rs. 1,210; and, in execution of that decree, attached the property which is the subject of the present action. The plaintiff intervened under Section 246 of Act VIII of 1859, alleging that the house was his sole and exclusive property. This application was rejected. Subsequently, the plaintiff instituted a regular suit against Prem Bibi and another, to establish his exclusive title to the property; and, after the suit had been pending for some time, he withdrew it without obtaining permission of the Court to bring a second action for the same matter. After the suit had been withdrawn, the attachment fell through, but the property was re-attached and sold in execution of the same decree, and was purchased by the defendant on the 2nd July 1877. The plaintiff did not appear to contest the second execution-proceedings after his sui...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »