Kolkata Court February 1883 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.
Parbutty Dassi Vs. Purno Chunder Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-06-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal586
Prinsep, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, as representative of her late husband, claims to hold a three annas, eighteen and three-fourth gundahs share in a certain julkur called Noa Bawarkati as appertaining to a patni mehal purchased by her husband at a sale held under Regulation VIII of 1819.2. The defendants deny that the disputed julkur appertains to the plaintiff's taluk, and assert that it appertains to Jote Gossain appertaining to Mouzah Narainpore.3. The Moonshi decreed the suit. He based his judgment partly oh a Civil Court Decree, No. 617 of 1818, and, interpreting it with the light of an Ameen's report in a former case, decided that the plaintiff was entitled to the property, and accordingly gave her a decree.4. On appeal the Subordinate Judge decided that that decree could not be admitted in evidence between the parties to the present suit. He then went on to say that even if one of the parties to that suit, namely Rashmoni, could be considered as the predecessor in title o...
G.C. Simson and ors. Vs. Gora Chand Doss
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal473
R. Garth, C.J.1. I think that this case is abundantly clear. It seems to me that the learned Judge is right on both points, and that we should answer the questions referred to us in accordance with that view. I think that the defendant should pay the costs of this reference.Wilson, J.2. I am of the same opinion. I would only add a few words. It appears to me that what we have first to do is to ascertain the terms of the contract. The contract is for the delivery of 7,500 bags of castor seeds which were to be shipped 'per steamers,' and then the Contract goes on to state, 'shipment 2,500 bags per S.S. 'Moharaja,' now expected on Madras Coast, 2,500 bags in December 1881 and 2,500 bags in January 1882.' 'Terms cash on delivery, which is to be taken from steamer's side, Calcutta, or from jetty on arrival of steamer.'3. This is the whole of the contract so far as it is material, and taken altogether it seems to me abundantly clear from it that so far as the two latter portions are concerne...
RamnaraIn Kallia Vs. Monee Bibee and ors. and
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal613
Norris, J.1. I am of opinion that this document is not admissible in evidence. It is tendered as being admissible under Section 32, Clause 6 of the Evidence Act. That sub-section makes a statement admissible when it 'relates to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption between persons deceased, and is made in any will or deed relating to the affairs of the family to which any such deceased person belonged, or in any family pedigree, or upon any tombstone, family portrait, or other thing on which such statements are usually made, and when such statement was made before the question in dispute was raised.' The document tendered is not a statement relating 'to the existence of any relationship by blood, marriage, or adoption, between persons deceased.' It only purports on the face of it to be a statement of relationship between a deceased person and a living person. I do not think that Section 32 embraces such a case. It is not suggested that the document is a will...
Kally Prosunno Biswas and anr. Vs. Mungala Dassee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal631
Prinsep, J.1. It seems clear from the record that the lower Appellate; Court has wrongly admitted what has been termed a cross appeal, but what, strictly speaking, is an objection taken by the respondent under Section 561 of the Code. The day fixed for the hearing of the appeal in the lower Appellate Court was, according to the notice served on the respondent, the 11th of June 1881. Therefore, according to the terms of Section 561, as interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court, the notice of the objection, that is, the written petition of objection itself, should have been filed in the lower Appellate Court not less than seven days before the day fixed for the hearing of the appeal, namely, the 11th June. It was not filed till the 14th June. The only provision made by the Legislature for extending the period of limitation is to be found in the second Clause of Section 5 of the Limitation Act (XV of 1877); and as has already been pointed out in the case of Degamber Mozumdar v. Kallyn...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›