Kolkata Court July 1883 Judgments
Prosunno Nath Chowdhri and ors. Vs. Ichamoyee Chowdhranee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-31-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal557
Wilson, J.1. This was a rule granted under Section 622 of the Procedure Code, to show cause why an order of the Subordinate Judge of Pubna, directing an award to be filed, should not be set aside. The rule was granted upon two grounds, the first and most important of which is, in my opinion, sufficient to dispose of the case, viz., 'that considering the cause shown against the award the order ought not to have been made.'2. The question turns upon the construction of Sections 525 and 526 of the Procedure Code, Section 525 says: 'When any matter has been referred to arbitration without the intervention of a Court of Justice, and an award has been made thereon, any person interested in the award may apply to the Court of the lowest grade having jurisdiction over the matter to which the award relates, that the award be filed in Court. The application shall be in writing and shall be numbered and registered as a suit between the applicant as plaintiff and the other parties as defendants. T...
Tag this Judgment!Korban Ally Mirdha Vs. Sharoda Proshad Aich and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-26-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal82
Prinsep, J.1. The plaintiff in this case 8ues on an unregistered mortgage bond, the consideration of which is Rs. 99. The defendants, stated to he the mortgagors, denied the execution of the mortgage bond. There is another party who appeared and was brought on the record, who claims this property as having been bought under an unregistered conveyance from the other defendants, the admitted owners.2. Both the lower Courts, on the authority of the decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Himmat Singh v. Sewaram I.L.R. 3 All. 157 have dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiff's mortgage bond was one of which registration was compulsory, and, therefore, cannot be made the subject of suit.3. In our opinion the judgments of the lower Courts are erroneous, not being in accordance with a series of decisions delivered by this Court. The High Courts of Madars and Bombay, it may be observed, have adopted the same view of the law. The lower Courts are bound to foll...
Tag this Judgment!Khajah Assenoolla Joo Vs. Khajah Abdool Aziz and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal923
Pigot, J.1 Made an order striking out the defence of Khajah Abdool Aziz under Section 136 of the Code in consequence of his non-compliance with the order of the 29th March 1883; and at the same time mentioned that the party against whom the order was made might come in and seek to set it aside on showing good grounds for the application....
Tag this Judgment!Khatija Bibi Vs. Taruk Chunder Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-23-1883
Reported in: (1883)ILR9Cal980
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We see no sufficient ground for transferring this suit from the Dacca Court to that of Furridpore.2. Prim facie, the plaintiff as the arbiter litis has a right to bring his suit in any Court which the law allows; and Section 23 is only intended, as we consider to provide for those cases, where, on the ground of expense or convenience, or some other good reason, the Court thinks that the place of trial ought to be changed.3. If for instance, in this case, the defendant could have shown us that great expense could have been saved, or that the balance of convenience was strongly in favour of the case being tried at Furridpore, we might have thought it right to grant his application. But looking at the allegations on both sides, we think it very difficult to say where the balance of convenience lies.4. The plaintiff, on the one hand, says that, though a great part of the property in suit is in Furridpore, some of it is in Dacca; that the defendant himself lives at Dac...
Tag this Judgment!Bakhir Mohammed Vs. Doorga Churn Shaha and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-19-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal39
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It seems to me that in this case the plaintiff had no right of action.2. As a general rule, the defendant (the execution-creditor) would have had a right to sell any moveable property of the plaintiff's for satisfaction of his debt, but amongst the exceptions to this rule are such cattle as, in the 'opinion of the Court, are necessary to enable the execution-debtor to cam his livelihood as an agriculturist.'3. In order, therefore, to exempt from execution any cattle of the execution-debtor, it is necessary, as I take it, that the Court should first express its opinion that such cattle are necessary to enable the execution-debtor to earn his livelihood; and I also think it is clear that the Court which has to decide this point is the Court which issues the execution.4. If this is so, it follows that neither the execution-creditor nor the execution-debtor, nor any Court except that which issues the execution, has any right to determine this point; and in order that ...
Tag this Judgment!Kali Prosad Banerji Vs. Gisborne and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-15-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal61
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that Clause 17, of Section 19, Act VII of 1870 is applicable to a case of this kind, and consequently that no Court-fee is payable on the appeal....
Tag this Judgment!Watson and Co. Vs. Rakhal Churn Mundul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1883
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal50
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The suit out of which this proceeding arose was commenced some ten years ago. It was brought by the present plaintiffs against Raja Pramatha Nath Roy to recover certain land which they had purchased from Umakant Mozumdar and others.2. The plaintiffs obtained a decree for possession in 1874 and were proceeding, to execute it when they were opposed by one Radharaman Munshee, who claimed it as part of a patni taluq which he held under a potta from Raja Krishna Chund, which was granted in the year 1241 (1834).3. Radharaman's claim was at first rejected; but he appealed, and after two remands this case came on to be tried between the plaintiffs and Radharaman under Section 229 of the Code of 1859.4. It has now been tried by the two lower Courts, and comes up to this Court on second appeal; but meanwhile, pending the proceedings, Radharaman sold his patni to one Radhamadhub, who again sold it to one Brojolal Mundul, who has since died; and his widow Shyama Sundari is th...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›