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.
Luchmiput Singh Vs. Amir Alum and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal176
Tottenham, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpore, ordering restoration to the plaintiff, respondent, as mutwali, of certain property alleged to be wuqf, which had been acquired by the defendant No. 1, appellant, by auction-purchase in execution of a decree held by the defendants Nos. 2 and 3 against the defendant, No. 4. The wuqf was created in 1872 by Shah Enayet Hossein, the late father of the defendant No. 4, and grandfather of the plaintiff The plaintiff, being a minor, the suit was, with the permission of the District Judge, instituted on his behalf by his sister, Bibi Fatema alias Bibi Nur Jehan.2. The defendant No. 4, Shah Asudulla Saheb, is the plaintiff's father.3. When the property was attached in 1873, the debtor filed a claim on behalf of the present plaintiff, objecting that the property was wuqf, and not liable to be sold, the debtor being only the manager thereof during the minority of his son, the mutwali. That claim, however, wa...
Mohadeay Kooer Vs. Huruk NaraIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal244
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Tirhoot dismissing the (plaintiff's) appellant's suit for the partition of a revenue-paying estate, a fractional share of which is owned and held by her by right of inheritance from her husband. The defendants, 1st party, who own and hold another share of this estate, and who if they survive the (plaintiff) appellant are presumptively entitled to the share in her possession after her death, alone opposed her claim.2. It appears that before this suit was instituted the (plaintiff) appellant had made an application to the Collector of the district to partition the estate under the provisions of Beng. Act VIII of 1876, but the Collector dismissed the application on the ground that the (plaintiff) appellant being in possession of a share of the estate as a Hindu widow was precluded by the 10th Section of the Act from applying for the partition thereof.3. The present suit was then brought, praying for the revers...
In Re: the Matter of the Petition of Hemlota Dabee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal226
Field, J.1. This is an appeal against an order of the Judge of Nuddea refusing to grant probate of a will. The ground on which the Judge refused to grant probato is, that the witnesses signed before the testator's signature was affixed at his request. It appears that the witnesses first signed the will, which was then taken to the Sub-Registrar; and before the Sub-Registrar, the testator Girish Chunder requested Chunder Coomar Chatterji to sign for him, and Chunder Coomar Chatterji wrote his name for him accordingly at his request.2. It is now contended before us, on the authority of the case of Roy money Dassee I.L.R., 1 Cal., 150 and of Hurro Sundari Dabia v. Chunder Kant Bhuttacharjee I.L.R. 6 Cal. 17 that there is in this case a sufficient admission of the signature of the testator, because there is upon, the will an endorsement that the executor admitted the execution. Now this endorsement is signed 'Girish Chunder Banerji, by the pen of Chunder Coomar Chatterji.' Then come the wo...
Goberdhun Lall Vs. Behary Lall and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1882
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal446
Mitter, J.1. The question in this case is whether the decree obtained by the respondent against the appellants on the 17th January 1877 is barred by limitation. The lower Court has held that it is not barred, because an application had been made by the decree-holder within three years from the present application in order to bring certain property of the judgment-debtors to sale in execution. In its opinion the present case is governed by Article 179 of the present Limitation Act, viz., Act XV of 1877. The words of Article 179, which, in the opinion of the lower Court, save the decree from being barred, are as follows: 'The date of applying in accordance with law to the proper Court to take some step in aid of execution of the decree or order.' The lower Court was of opinion that an application for the sale of a judgment-debtor's property is one that comes within these words.2. In the corresponding article of the Limitation Act of 1871, viz., Article 167, these words are not to be foun...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›