Kolkata Court June 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.
Goluck Chunder Shaha, Alias Goluck Shaha Vs. Brojo Gobind Shaha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal127
Prinsep, J.1. It is contended before us in appeal that the document upon which the plaintiff sues is a 'promissory note,' and that being so, it should have been stamped, and that the Collector, at a subsequent period, was unable to order it to be stamped on payment of a penalty. It appears to us, however, that the document before us cannot be so regarded. It is exactly of the same nature as the document which forms the subject of the suit in the case of Brojender Coomar v. Bromomoye Chowdhrani I.L.R. 4 Cal. 885; 3 C.L.R. 520. In that case White, J. in delivering the Judgment of the Court, expressed himself in the following terms: 'Now, if any one of the entries in the hathchitta had stood alone, and had been intended by the parties to form an isolated entry in the book, it might have been contended with considerable force that it fell within the description of document mentioned in the 5th article as requiring a stamp. We think, however, that the entries cannot be detached from the acc...
Bhaobunessury Vs. Judobendra NaraIn Mullick
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-20-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal869
Prinsep, J.1. The lower Appellate Court has held that the application under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1877 is barred, inasmuch as it was not made within thirty days from the date of executing the process, that is, the attachment in execution of the ex-parte decree. For the judgment debtor it is contended that there was no such attachment made, and that this application is in time. The lower Court, however, held that in the absence of any evidence on the part of the defendant, it would, under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, presume that the attachment was properly made.2. We think that the view taken by the lower Court was perfectly correct, and that it was incumbent on the defendant judgment-debtor to show that he made his application under Section 108 within thirty days from the date of the first process in execution of the decree passed against him. Having failed to do so, his application was correctly disallowed as barred. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed wit...
Debi Churn Boido Vs. Issur Chunder Manjee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal39
O'Kinealy, J.1. In this suit the plaintiff claimed that the disputed parcel of land was situate within his jama, and that he had been lately dispossessed from it by the defendants. The defendants, on the other hand, contended, that the land formed part of their jote, and that the plaintiff had never been in possession. In the first Court the Munsif, coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff had not been in possession of the land within twelve years, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed and on the case coming before the District Judge, he arrived at the conclusion that, as the plaintiff had never measured the land, nor produced any documentary evidence through his landlord, that the land had been measured by the latter, nothing that he could produce in the way of oral evidence would be sufficient to justify a decree.2. In this Court it has been urged upon us, that, under Section 110 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the plaintiff had proved possession for some time within twelve ye...
Kedarnath Banerjee and ors. Vs. Bhootnath Chatterjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal125
Prinsep, J.1. This is one of the many cases that have recently been before the Courts arising out of the Land Registration Act. The defendant succeeded, as against the plaintiffs, in getting his name registered as in possession of four katas of land.2. The plaintiffs have brought the present suit to obtain possession by proof of title, alleging that the registration-proceedings were their cause of action,-that is to say, as we understand it, that; they wore in possession up to the date on which those proceedings were taken. The defendant says, that he has been in possession for the last twenty-five years under a verbal gift made in his favour by one who is said to have been the plaintiff's ancestor.3. Now the first point which the District Judge had to decide was whether, under such circumstances, the plaintiffs have proved that they were in possession of the land in dispute within twelve years from the institution of the suit. The possession set up by the plaintiffs is, that they exca...
Heet NaraIn and ors. Vs. Gya Persad, Alias Lal Persad, and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal93
Prinsep, J.1. The sole point for our decision in this case is whether the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs sued to recover certain property as having been bought in the name of Mussamut Lakho by Ram Narain Sahoo, and that, on the death of Lakho, they are entitled to succeed as her heirs. It appears that this property is now held by the heirs of Bhoop Narain Sahoo, who is a relative of both the plaintiffs and of Ram Narain, but subordinate as regards rights of inheritance to the plaintiff's. In April 1859, one Sheo Golam Bhagut obtained a decree against Bhoop Narain, in execution of which, in 1862, he sold the properties now in suit, Sheo Golam being himself the purchaser. He then sold his rights to one Sheo Narain Sahoo, who again, in July 1863, sold to Mussamut Lakho.2. In November 1865, Lakho applied to execute this decree and got possession of this property; but nothing resulted from this application, for, on the following June, it was struck off for default. In November...
Bany Mistry Vs. Ertaza HosseIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal130
Tottenham, J.1.We think that the judgment of the lower Appellate Court in this case cannot be supported.2. The question in dispute was, whether the land belonged to the village of Allygunge or that of Hobeebpore. The plaintiff sued to recover it on the ground that it belonged to Allygunge; and that he held it under the proprietors of that Mauza, and for a long time. It, therefore, was incumbent upon him, in our opinion, to prove either that the land in fact belonged to Allygunge, or that he had enjoyed possession of it adversely to the defendants for at least twelve years. The proprietors of Allygunge were not parties to the suit. The proprietors of Hobeebpore were the defendants.3. The lower Appellate Court found as a fact that the plaintiff had not made out twelve years' adverse possession. The Subordinate Judge, therefore, remanded the case to the Munsif for an enquiry as to which mauza the land belonged. The result was that the Munsif professed himself unable to determine that poin...
Shoshee Mohun Pal and ors. Vs. Dinobundhoo Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal217
Field, J.1. In this case the appellant before us was the purchaser of a property sold at an execution-sale, and he applied to the Court below, in accordance with the provisions of Section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to have the sale set aside, on the ground that the person whose property purported to be sold had no saleable interest therein. The facts of the case are briefly as follows: The judgment-debtor, under the decree in execution of which the property was sold, was adjudicated an insolvent by the High Court on the 19th January 1881. The decree was made in February 1881. The attachment in execution of the decree was in June 1881; and the sale was in August 1881. From this it appears that before the dates on which the decree was made, the attachment was made, and the sale was made, the judgment-debtor had been adjudicated an insolvent. Now the effect of that adjudication was, that all the property of the judgment-debtor vested in the Official Assignee. Section 7 of the Act...
Gobind Sahoo Vs. Bhugwan Acharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal234
O'Kinealy, J.1. In this suit certain property was mortgaged to the plaintiff by the defendants, under a kut-kobala, in the year 1869; and in that document the property was described as their own exclusive property which they had obtained by purchase. Subsequently, the plaintiff instituted foreclosure proceedings, and issued the usual notice to the mortgagors. After the year of grace had expired, he sued for the mortgaged property; but certain persons intervened, and he withdrew the suit with sanction to bring a new case. From the evidence on the record, which from the observations of the Judge who tried the case in the lower Court appears to have been believed by him, it appears that the mortgagors, on the representation of the mortgagee, said, that if a new suit wore brought for possession of the property, they would induce the recusant members of the joint family to which they belonged to confess judgment. This suit was accordingly brought, and those members of the family, instead of...
Chunee Mul Johary and ors. Vs. Brojo Nath Roy Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal967
Field, J.1. This is a case under Section 77 of the Registration Act. The plaintiffs seek to have a mortgage deed registered, which was executed by the defendant Brojo Nath Roy Chowdhry. The Sub-Registrar of Howrah, who was the Registering Officer to whom it was presented for registration, refused to register, on the ground that Brojo Nath Roy Chowdhry, the executant, was a minor. In making this order he acted under the provisions of Section 35 of the Registration. Act, which provides as follows: 'If any of the persons by whom the document purports to be executed appears to the Registering Officer to be a minor, the Registering Officer shall refuse to register the document.' Now, the object of this provision is undoubtedly this, that if the registration authorities refuse to register on the ground that the executant is a minor, the question of minority may at once be brought into a Civil Court and there determined; and it is clear that this question can be decided more satisfactorily at...
Ramgopal Chatterjee and ors. Vs. Puddolabh Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal133
Tottenham, J.1. The plaintiffs in this suit stated that they were appointed a committee under Act XX of 1863 of the temple of the idol Gopinath. They said that the defendant was the highest officer in the temple appointed by the former local agents and confirmed by themselves, and that his duty was, under their supervision, to look after the sheba of the idol and to collect the rents, &c.; They say that he became incompetent for the discharge of his duties and mismanaged affairs; and that, consequently, the committee dismissed him from office on the 15th November 1876. Notwithstanding his dismissal, the plaintiffs say, that the defendant continued exercising the same rights and enjoying the same perquisites, and so forth that he had during his incumbency as superintendent; and that he was causing waste of the property of the idol. They therefore brought a suit asking for an injunction against the defendant, directing him not to assume the official designation of the superintendent of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »