Kolkata Court July 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.
Surjokant Nundi Vs. Mohesh Chunder Dutt and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal70
Richard Garth, C.J.1. In this case we think it right to follow what we understand to be the rule laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Uma Sunker Moitro v. Kali Komul Mozumdar I.L.R. 6 Cal. 256.2. We find no special text or rule laid down in the books applicable to this case; and we, therefore, hold that the adopted son of a daughter shares equally with a natural son the inheritance left by his maternal grandfather. The lower Court's view is, therefore, correct.3. The appeal is dismissed with costs....
Beer Chunder Manickya Vs. Hurro Chunder Burmon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-12-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal211
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The circumstances under which this case arose are these:The plaintiff Moharaja appointed the defendant as tehsildar in one of his zamindaries on the 22nd Aghran 1283 T.S. The defendant worked as such up to the 9th Bhadur 1285 T.S., when he was dismissed. The defendant, on the 14th Bysack 1286 T.S., submitted an account of the collections and disbursements during the period of his service, but the Moharaja's officers took exception to several of the items, and made out a balance of Rs. 2,578 annas 15 pie 6 against him. The Moharaja was prepared to sue the defendant for recovery of this balance, but the defendant asked for time in order to enable him to make good the items by producing vouchers, as also by mofussil. inquiry. The Moharaja consented to give time to the defendant upon his executing an ikrar, with a promise to pay whatever balance would be found due from him upon such inquiry. The defendant accordingly gave a registered ikrar on the 23rd Chyet 1286 T.S....
Eckford Vs. Jumma Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal1
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The questions which have been raised on appeal, and which we have to determine, are: 1st, whether the transaction entered into between Messrs. Nicholls & Co., and the defendant was of such a nature as was justified by the power-of-attorney? and 2ndly, whether it was entered into for and on behalf, and in the name of, Major Eckford within the meaning of the power2. I think that both these questions should be answered in the negative.3. It seems to me that the transaction in its nature was neither a sale nor purchase of the shares in question. It was either an actual loan, or a transaction in the nature of a loan, for the purpose of raising money.4. This appears, I think, very clearly from the evidence of Ramrutton Danye, the broker, who acted for Messrs. Nicholls on the one hand, and of Daidraj Argurwallah, the gomashta of the defendant, on the other. Ramrutton, although necessarily called by the plaintiff, was by no means a favourable witness to him. His object ev...
Tarachand Dass and ors. Vs. Prokash Chunder Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal82
Richard Garth, C.J.1. If we were called upon to decide this question merely upon the language of the Registration Act of 187.1 and the Code of 1859, and without regard to the practice which has prevailed in this province, it is possible that we might take the same view of it as the other High Courts, or at any rate, out of respect for their opinion, we should not adopt a contrary view without considerable reluctance.2. But, in point of fact, we are now asked to put a construction upon these Acts with reference to the registration of sale-certificates, which is directly at variance with that which has been recognized and acted upon by the people of Bengal for many years past. We are not aware of a single instance in which this Court has held that such certificates ought to be registered; whilst, on the other hand, both on the Appellate and on the Original Sides of the Court, such instruments have been admitted in evidence without registration.3. And this practice moreover appears to hav...
Tinumoni Dasi Vs. Nibarun Chunder Gupta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal154
1. We are of opinion that, on the death of a daughter, who had succeeded before her marriage to her father's estate to the exclusion of her married sister, the estate so inherited by her devolves upon her married sister, who has, or is likely to have, male issue, and not upon her own son.2. According to the Hindu law in Bengal, the succession of females who have generally no heritable rights, takes place in certain exceptional cases specified in the Shasters. Jimutavahana, after citing the text of Baudhayana to the effect that 'a woman is entitled not to the heritage; for females and persons deficient in an organ of sense or member are deemed incompetent to inherit,' says, that 'the succession of the widow and certain others takes effect under express texts without any contradiction to this maxim'--see Dayabhaga, chap. xi, Section 6, para. 11.3. There are also certain special rules applicable to the succession of a female. For example, on her death the succession devolves not upon her ...
Rup Lall Das and anr. Vs. NobIn Chunder Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal377
Field, J.1. This is a case somewhat complicated by details, but the point which has to be decided is a very simple one when eliminated from these details. It appears beyond all doubt, and in fact it has now been admitted before us, that the plaintiffs and defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 were joint proprietors of a seven-anna share in a talook, and for this seven-anna share a separate account had been opened, under the provisions of Act XI of 1859, in the Collectorate. By some mistake upon an arrear of revenue falling due, the whole talook was advertized for sale, but this mistake was afterwards corrected and what was about to be sold for the unpaid balance of revenue was only the seven-anna share just mentioned. The plaintiffs, in order to prevent the sale, paid Rs. 87-6-10, which was the amount of the unpaid balance of revenue, and they have brought this suit to recover this amount from the defendants other than defendant 5, who are, as has already been pointed out, the plaintiff's co...
Nurendro Nath Roy Vs. Bholanath Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-10-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal380
Wilson, J.1. In this case the question turns wholly upon the construction of Section 58 of the Rent Act, which says that 'no process of execution of any description whatsoever shall be issued on a judgment in any suit for any of the causes of action mentioned in Sections 27, 28, 29 or 30 of this Act, after the lapse of three years from the date of such judgment, unless the judgment be for a sum exceeding five hundred rupees.' In the present case the judgment or decree is for a sum less than Rs. 500, and the question raised is whether the right to execute is barred.2. Now what appears to have happened is this: that within three years from the date of the decree an application was made for the transfer of a certified copy of the decree from the Court by which the decree was made, to the Court of the Munsif of Nawabgunge. A certified copy was transmitted. After the lapse of three years from the date of the decree, an application was made for execution to the Munsif of Nawabgunge. He held ...
The Empress Vs. Pemantle
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-09-1882
Reported in: (1882)ILR8Cal971
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The prisoner was tried and convicted on the 30th day of March last, upon a charge framed under Section 366 of the Penal Code, for having kidnapped one Eva Fleury in order that she might be seduced to illicit intercourse.2. Eva Fleury was the illegitimate child of a Mrs. Fleury, long since deceased, and was, when the offence was committed, living in the house and under the care and custody of a Mrs. Lorenztsen, who claimed to be her lawful guardian within the meaning of Section 361 of the Penal Code. Eva Fleury was, at the time when the offence was committed, a minor under the age of sixteen years, and Mrs. Lorenztsen's claim to be considered her legal guardian was based upon the fact that Mrs. Fleury, on her death-bed, confided Eva and another child to her keeping; this was some twelve years ago. Mrs. Lorenztsen accepted the trust, and has ever since had the charge of and maintained the child at her own expense.3. At the trial the counsel for the prisoner raised t...
MomIn Mondul Vs. Imam Buksh Mondul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal280
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff, as one of the sons of Sona Mondul, a deceased Mahomedan, sued for possession of a 4-anna share in a certain jote, on the allegation of dispossession therefrom by the defendant (landlord) in Assar 1279 (June 1872). The defendant pleaded that the plaintiff and his brothers, not being able to hold on the jote by paying its rent, relinquished the same in Joisto 1279 (May 1872), and fled away to a different village.2. Both Courts have found that the plaintiff and his brothers were forcibly turned out from the lands by the defendant's predecessors, and have consequently decreed the plaintiff's claim; the lower Appellate Court holding that one year's limitation under Section 27 of the Rent Law did not apply to the suit.3. It has been argued here that the lower Appellate Court was wrong on this question of limitation; and we think the contention is well founded. The plaintiff's suit, both in form and substance, was to recover possession of his jote, having ...
Sreenath Roy Vs. Radhanath Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-07-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal773
Richard Garth, C.J. and 1. I am of opinion that the preliminary objection must prevail, and that no appeal lies in this case.2. Mr. Allen has contended that the order which is appealed against is one made under Section 244 of the Civil Procedure Code, and is therefore appealable under Section 2 of that Act, as amended by Act XII of 1879.3. The suit in which the order was made is an administration suit brought by the plaintiff, a creditor, for administering the estate of Jogendronath Mookerjee, and for having the plaintiff's debts ascertained, and paid out of the assets. A decree was obtained, declaring the plaintiff entitled to the sum which he claims, and directing an account to be taken in the usual way.4. The party to the suit who represents the estate is an infant, who appears by guardian, and an attorney named Nobin Chund Boral acts for the guardian.5. It then appears that in another suit a sum of Rs. 5,000 has been placed in the hands of the Receiver, on account of the infant def...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »