Kolkata Court March 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.
Mahomed Mabood Bux and ors. Vs. Toree Mahomed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal730
Tottenham, J.1. The question for decision in this appeal is, whether an application made on the 26th of January 1882 for the execution of a decree, dated the 26th of August 1878, is barred by limitation. The judgment-debtor, appellant, contends that it is barred, as having been made more than three years after any previous application to the Court to take some step in aid of execution of the decree within the meaning of Article 179 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.2. It appears that execution proceedings were going on in February 1879, and the decree-holders on the 22nd of that month paid a Court-fee of Rs. 2 into Court, in connection with those proceedings. The lower Court has held that this act of the decree-holders was practically such an application as comes within the meaning of Article 179, and that thus the decree is saved from limitation.3. We think that this opinion is not sustainable, for it seems to us clear that the decree-holders did not on that occasion ask the Court...
Moheswar Das Vs. Carter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal210
Richard Garth, C.J. (Prinsep and Wilson, JJ., concurring.)1. This is a case referred under Section 617 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is unnecessary for us to express any opinion on any of the points which arise, except on that referring to the relations between the parties arising out of the risk note, which was the agreement under which the goods were received and despatched by the Railway Company, because the learned Counsel on behalf of the Company in the present case has agreed to waive any objections to the suit as brought against the Traffic Manager, in order that he may obtain our opinion on the main point in issue.2. It appears that twelve tins containing 6 1/2 maunds of ghee were consigned to the Railway Company at Agra for delivery at Ahmedpore. It has been found, that when these tins were delivered, one had been cut open by a knife, and there was consequently a deficiency of some 21i seers in the quantity of ghee contained in them.3. For the defendants it is contended that...
HosaIn Khan Vs. Ulfatunnissa Alias Elahijan Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal520
Wilson, J.1. The main question raised in this appeal is one upon the construction of Section 49 of the Registration Act (III of 1877).2. The instrument sued on was not produced; but the loss having been proved, secondary evidence was given of its contents. The exact terms of the document do not appear; but the witnesses all agree that the document, which they call a bond, contained an acknowledgment of a loan of Rs. 2,500, a promise to repay the amount, and a mortgage of immoveable property to secure it.3. The suit is a personal suit to recover the money. And the question is, whether the document can be given in evidence in support of such a personal claim, it not having been registered.4. Section 49 says: 'No document required by Section 17 to be registered shall affect any immoveable property, or confer any power to adopt, or be received as evidence of any transaction affecting such property or conferring such power.'5. The whole question appears to turn upon the meaning of the word ...
G.M. Reily Vs. Hur Chunder Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal722
Cunningam, J.1. The main question in this case is, whether a portion of a tenure can be sold for arrears of rent under Beng., Act VIII of 1869.2. Appellant's case is, that defendant No. 3 who was the landlord of defendant No. 4, and in receipt of a half share of the rent of a tenure rated at Rs. 60-11, caused his share in the tenure to be sold in execution of a decree for arrears of rent. Appellant became the purchaser, and he now claims possession on the ground that he purchased the property free of encumbrances, and that defendant No. 1 has fraudulently and collusively set up a false mortgage by defendant No. 4 and his co-sharers, and in execution of a decree obtained on the mortgage has bought the whole tenure, and ousted appellant from one-half.3. Reference to the sale certificate shows that the sale, at which appellant purchased on 15th January 1875, was held under the provisions of Beng. Act VIII of 1869, and that a jama of Rs. 30-5-6 out of Rs. 60-11 was sold.4. Both the lower C...
Nobo Kishore Surma Biswas Vs. Rudra Kant Surma Sircar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal663
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that the question referred to us should be answered in the affirmative.2. It seems to me that the provisions in the Limitation Acts, which relieve minors and, others under disability from the rules which are binding upon other people, are purely personal exemptions, and must be considered as attaching to the person only, and not to the property, or the title, of those who are under disability.3. The only reason, I conceive, why such persons are not subjected to the ordinary rules of limitation, is that the law considers them incapable of forming a proper by judgment as to bringing suits, or otherwise managing their own affairs.4. But this reason does not apply to the property of such persons, or the titles by which they hold it; nor does there seem to be any good ground why the protection thus afforded to them should be extended to purchasers from them.5. It may perhaps seem rather hard, that in a case like the present, a man purchasing property from a min...
H. Mackintosh Vs. C. Crow and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal689
Wilson, J.1. Two rules of law are established by the Legislature of this country:First.--That a man is free to contract to pay any rate of interest that he chooses upon money borrowed; and the Courts must enforce it against him, Act XXVIII of 1855, Section 21, and there is nothing to hinder his agreeing with regard to the future as well as the present. He may contract to pay no interest at present, but interest hereafter; or to pay one rate of interest now, and a higher or lower rate hereafter.Secondly.--By Section 74 of the Contract Act, 'when a contract has been broken, if a sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, the party complaining of such breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party, who has broken the contract, reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named.' This section, it will be observed, does away with the distinction between a penalty and liquidated damag...
Mamtazul Huq and ors. Vs. Nirbhai Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal711
Prinsep, J.1. I have had the advantage of seeing the judgments of my learned colleagues in this case, and I entirely concur in the opinion expressed by Mr. Justice WILSON. I would only add, as I have already stated in the case of Gureebullah v. Mohun Lall Shaha I.L.R. 7 Cal. 127: 8 C.L.R. 409 that if a reference to the Code of Civil Procedure is necessary to interpret the terms 'date of judgment' used in Section 58, Beng. Act VIII of 1869, we find in Section 185 Act VIII of 1859, and also in Section 202, Act XIV of 1882, that the 'judgment shall be dated by the Judge in open Court at the time of pronouncing it,' and this is supplemented by Section 189 of the former Act and by Section 205 of the Code of 1882; both of which declare that the decree shall bear date the day on which the judgment was passed.' I also confirm the experience of Mr. Justice McDonell, that until the decision of the case of Gureebullah Sircar v. Mohun Lall Shaha I.L.R. 7 Cal. 127: 8 C.L.R. 409 this view of the law...
Mahomed Ali Khan and ors. Vs. Khaja Abdul Gunny and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal744
Wilson, J.1. In these suits the plaintiffs sought to have their rights declared to shares in 50 khadas of land, and to be put in possession of them jointly with the defendants. The defendants denied the plaintiffs' title and also pleaded limitation. The lower Appellate Court has decided in favour of the plaintiffs on the question of title, holding them entitled to be put into possession, but for limitation. It has, however, held that their claim is barred by limitation. The question before us is whether the rule of limitation has been correctly applied.2. The facts found or admitted, so far as they are material for the present purpose, seem to be these: The plaintiffs and the defendants have a good title to the lands in question jointly. At the date of a Thakbust in 1859 they were in joint possession. The whole of the lands were then jungle, yielding, however, some kind of profit, which has been variously described.3. At some time or times subsequent to that date, but more than ten yea...
Upendra NaraIn Myti Vs. Gopee Nath Bera and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal817
Prinsep, J.1. Madhub Bera died leaving four sons, who admittedly formed a joint Hindu family. In 1264 Nursingh the eldest separated from his brothers. In 1878, Korunamoyi, the widow and heiress of the son of the second brother Goburdhun, sued the third son Gopeenath, the third brother, and Chintamoni, the widow and heiress of the son of the fourth brother Manikram (deceased), for her share of the family property. That suit ended in a solehnama or compromise under which Gopeenath, on the one hand, agreed to give up 25 bighas to Korunamoyi and 15 bighas to Chintamoni, while Korunamoyi for herself and Bishtupria, the mother-in-law and guardian of Chintamoni, on the other hand, agreed to give up all rights to any family property of the brothers whom they represented.2. The plaintiff, a minor, being the son of a daughter of the fourth son Manikram the fourth brother as reversionary heir after Chintamoni and Bishtupria Hindu widows having only a life interest, sues to have it declared that t...
Sirdhary Lall Vs. Surjya NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal825
Prinsep, J.1. The questions raised in this appeal are, first, whether the bond marked 'A,' executed by Baboo Ram Gopal Singh to Baboo Sirdhary Lall dated the 31st March 1873, entitles Baboo Sirdhary Lall to demand compound interest; and, second, whether under Hindu law plaintiff was entitled to recover arrears of interest to an amount greater than the principal. One portion of the bond runs as follows: 'I, the declarant, have borrowed from Baboo Sirdhary Lall, inhabitant and part proprietor of Maskin Masihuddinnuggur, pergunnah Bhagulpore, Rs. 19,000, bearing interest at the rate of one rupee five annas per cent. per mensem from this day up to the date of repayment. Therefore I, the declarant, do hereby declare and state in writing that I shall pay the interest on the said sum every year, and the principal in one lump sum in Magh 1286, F. S; that whatever amount will be paid for interest or principal, I, the declarant, shall have the same credited on the back of this bond, the plea of ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »