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.
Kartick Singha Vs. Sreeputty Mirdha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-05-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal10
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the property of the plaintiff having been attached by the defendants, the plaintiff brought his claim under Section 246 of the old Code. That claim having been rejected without investigation, on the ground of the late date on which it was put in, plaintiff was left to prosecute his claim by a regular suit under Section 247. He has done so, and, after a contest on the part both of the judgment-debtor and the attaching-creditor, has established his right to the property in suit. But an objection is taken to the decree, which was also taken to the suit, on the ground that, at the time when the plaintiff made his claim, the attachment had virtually ceased owing to the decree having been satisfied from other properties of the judgment-debtor.2. We concur with the Court below in thinking that there is nothing in this circumstance to deprive the plaintiff of the remedy which the law provided for him. A very distinct shade of doubt would be thrown on his title by ...
Alangamonjori Dabee Vs. Sonamoni Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal637
White, J.1. The law is clear that, prior to the passing of the Hindu Wills Act (XXI of 1870), a gift by will to a person unborn at the time when the testator died was void, with a few exceptions which we need not consider now, as they have no application to the present suit.2. The law was so declared in 1873 by Peacock, C.J., and Norman, J., overruling Phear, J., and also by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in 1872, affirming on this point the decision of the first-named Judges, in the case of Jatendra Mohun Tagore v. Ganendra Mohun Tagore 4 B.L.R. O.C. 103; s.c. on appeal to P.C. 9 B.L.R. 377; L.R. I.A. Sup. Vol. 47.3. I believe that the decision in the Tagore case (4 B.L.R., O.C.,103; s.c., on appeal to P.C., 9 B.L.R., 377; L.R., I.A., Sup. Vol., 47, so far as it declared the invalidity of a bequest to persons unborn at the testator's death, came with surprise upon some members of the Profession, if not upon the Profession generally; and that, until that decision, it had a...
Prankisto Biswas Vs. Nobodip Chunder Biswas and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal868
McDonell, J.1. This is an application for a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860. The two petitioners, and the objector Prankisto Biswas, are, as the Judge says, admittedly in the same degree of affinity to the deceased, Bunshi Dhur; and prima facie therefore they would inherit equally. But Prankisto Biswas contends that he is entitled to have the whole property,-first, on the ground of reunion; secondly, on the ground of a verbal gift; and thirdly, on the ground of adoption.2. It is urged before us that Prankisto Biswas merely said that he was a palak-pootro and did. not set up adoption; but in the view we take of the case, it is unnecessary to enter into this matter.3. The Judge, having examined one of the witnesses on the 17th December, adjourned the case till the 23rd December for the examination of the remaining witnesses cited by Prankisto Biswas; but on the 19th December he disposed of the case without examining these other witnesses. We think that this mode of proceeding was unf...
G.A. Watson Vs. Jonmenjoy Coondoo
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-04-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal934
White, J.1. The first question is, what was the transaction that took place between the defendant and Thompson as the agent of the plaintiff in connection with the piece of Government paper in suit.2. There can, I think, be no doubt upon the evidence that it was a lending by the defendant and a borrowing in the name of, and ostensibly for, the plaintiff', of Rs. 19,000 upon the security of the paper. When the loan was effected a promissory note for the amount was executed in favour of the defendant by Thompson in the name of the plaintiff, and the Government paper was delivered, to the defendant by Thompson. The paper was not endorsed to the defendant, but at the time of its delivery to the defendant bore an endorsement in blank, which had some time previously and for some other purpose been made by Thompson in the name of the plaintiff.3. There is no dispute as to the identity of the paper. It is a promissory note of the Government of India of the four-and-half per cent. Loan of 1879 ...
Bissorup Gossamy and ors. Vs. Gorachand Gossamy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-03-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal120
Cunningham, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sue for possession of certain land, described as Mauza Bonkata, on a declaration of their title thereto. They allege that their ancestors obtained the entire Mauza Gossamipur and two drones of land transferred from the jami of Jugurnathpore; that these two drones were reclaimed and called Mauza Bonkata, and were let on mokurari lease to the father of the defendant Dinobundhu; that, on Dinobundhu's failure to pay rent, the land was resumed and let on patni to the 13th defendant Monmohini; that Monmohini sued the principal defendants for possession, and obtained a decree in the original Court, which was reversed in appeal and special appeal, 28th March 1867; that Mauza Bonkata never did appertain to Mauza Gossamipur, and never belonged to the defendants. In that suit the present plaintiffs were joined as defendants.2. The defendants contend, and the Courts below have held, that the suit is barred by Section 13 of Act X of 1877, inasmuch as the...
Huri Ram and ors. Vs. Raj Coomar Opadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal759
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that the District Judge is in error in holding that, as regards plot 13, the burden of proof lay upon the defendants, and not upon the plaintiff. He says, 'I think that the finding of the lower Court on this point might be defended, if the burden of proof lay upon the plaintiff to show that he was the real purchaser, but it lies upon the defendants to prove that he was not.' The plaintiff in this case sought to recover possession of this plot alleging that he was dispossessed. Therefore, as an ordinary case, the burden of proof lay upon the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case. There is no reason why any difference should be made in this case because the defendants say that the property was purchased benami by the plaintiff. Under Section 110 of the Evidence Act it is for the person who says that the party who is in possession of a disputed property is not the owner of it, to prove that he is not the owner of it. The section says--'when the question ...
Kirty Churn Mitter Vs. Aunath Nath Deb
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal757
Garth, C.J.1. I think the Taxing Master is quite right. If the plaintiff's suit had been to recover possession of, or establish his title to, the share which he claims in the property, he must have paid an ad valorem stamp-fee upon the value of that share. But, as I understand, he is already in possession of his share, and all that he wants is, to obtain a partition, which is merely, as explained by the learned Judges in the case of Rajendro Lall Gossami v. Shama Churn Lahoory 4 C.L.R. 418 to 'change the form of his enjoyment' of the property, or, in other words, to obtain a divided, instead of an undivided, share.2. It seems to me impossible to say what will be the value to the plaintiff of this change in the nature of his property, and I, therefore, think a stamp-fee of Rs. 10 is sufficient.3. The view of the Judges in the above case seems quite in accordance with this conclusion.4. It was quite right of course, for the purpose of jurisdiction, to be guided by the value of the proper...
Hicks Vs. Hicks
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal756
Wilson, J.1. I am satisfied that the practice does not require the decree to be served; and there will, therefore, be a decree absolute....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›