Kolkata Court April 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.
Ram Kanie Mandal and ors. Vs. Gunesh Chunder Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-09-1883
Reported in: 64Ind.Cas.550
1. Khoodiram Dey, the defendant No. 4, it the tenant of the plaintiffs. In execution of a decree for arrears of rent the plaintiffs attached 3 bighas of land which form the subject-matter of the present suit, as well as other lands, on the ground that this was the property of the judgment-debtor and held by him as their tenant. The other defendants intervened, stating that the 3 bighas had been sold to them by Khoodiram Dey and were situated in Chorghara, which belonged to another and neighbouring Zemindar.2. The Court in execution ordered the 3 bighas to be released from attachment on the ground that they were in the possession of the present defendants, the judgment-debtor Khoodiram having no longer any right, title and interest in them. The plaintiffs now sue all these parties, claiming the right to eject the defendants Nos. 1 to 3 on service of notices because they refused to pay the plaintiffs any rent.3. The case was originally tried in this Court solely on the ground of limitati...
Divendro Nath Sanyal and ors. Vs. Tarruck Chunder Bhuttacharjee and or ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal831
Tottenham, J.1. The cause of this appeal, which arises from the execution of a decree, is the refusal of the lower Court to recognize an alleged payment out of Court by the judgment-debtors of a large portion of the amount of the decree to one amongst several joint decree-holders, who also had certified the payment in the manner prescribed in Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code. This individual did not profess to have received payment for the joint benefit of all the decree-holders; but claiming to be entitled to 12 1/2 annas share of the whole, represented that his claim had been satisfied.2. Application was made by the other decree-holders for execution of the whole decree. They denied the right of Behary Lall to 12 1/2 annas share, or to any more than a small fraction of the decretal amount, and refused to recognize the payment said to have been made to him.3. The lower Court was of opinion that a payment out of Court could not be recognized under Section 258 unless certified by...
Nittyanund Singh and ors. Vs. Koob Lall Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal839
Prinsep, J.1. We think that the orders passed by the lower Courts are correct. Golab Chand Nowlakha, defendant No. 5, in 1877, obtained a mortgage decree against Imdad Ali. The plaintiff, in execution of a decree held by another person, has purchased the property hypothecated by that decree. The defendant, Koob Lall, stating that he was the assignee of the decree-holder, then executed the mortgage-decree obtained by Golab Chand and was about to put up for sale a portion of the property previously purchased by the plaintiff, when the plaintiff, in order to protect that property from sale, deposited under protest the money due under the decree. The present suit is to recover the money so paid. It has been found by both the lower Courts that Golab Chand, on the 6th August 1877, sold to one Jotee under an unregistered deed of conveyance, and that Jotee in August 1880 transferred his rights thereunder to Koob Lall by a registered conveyance. Both the Courts have found, and we think rightly,...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›