Kolkata Court January 1884 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 Coomer Sen and anr. Vs. Ram Comul Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-31-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal388
Field, J.1. In this case the plaintiffs sued to recover the value of a moiety of a taluq under the following circumstances. The landlord, who is the Maharajah of Tipperah, brought a suit for the rent of the taluq against Ram Comul Sen. He obtained a decree for Rs. 44-8, being the amount of rent in arrears; and, in execution of that decree, he brought the taluq to sale. It was purchased by one Nobo Coomar Eoy for the sum of Rs. 800. The plaintiffs' contention is that, although they were not made parties to the rent suit, nevertheless they had a half share in the taluq, and that they are therefore entitled to Rs. 400, the value of the half share.2. A preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of the appeal, it being contended that this is a suit of the Small Cause Court class, and therefore the amount in dispute being less than Rs. 500, no second appeal lies to the High Court.3. We have considered this preliminary objection, and the conclusion at which we arrive is, that this is not ...
Khepoo Paramanick Vs. Poromanand Khasnabish
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal354
Field, J.1. This was a suit brought to recover Rs. 186-14, alleged to have been paid by the plaintiff in satisfaction of a previous decree obtained by the defendant against him.2. The question which has been argued before us is whether a suit of this nature will lie. The old law under the Code of 1859, as settled by the Full Bench decision in Gunamani Dasi v. Prankishori Dasi 5 B.L.R. 223 was that such a suit will lie. Upon the Code of 1877, as unamended by the Act of 1879, there are two Madras decisions to be found in Viraraghava Reddi v. Subbaka I.L.R. 5 Mad. 397 a Full Bench case, and Chembrakandi Mussutti v. Themdyal Puthalath Shekharan Nayar I.L.R. 6 Mad. 41 following the Full Bench decision, that the suit is maintainable. Immediately after the Madras Full Bench decision, Section 258 of the Code was altered and amended. The last paragraph of the section, as amended by the Act of 1879, and as it stands in the Code of 1882 now in force, is: 'No such payment or adjustment shall be re...
Dilawar Ally Khan Vs. Omrunissa Bibee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal350
Field, J.1. This case arises out of a proceeding under the Land [Registration Act (Beng. Act VII of 1876), The plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to a 9 annas 11 gundas 1 krant 1 dunt share in kismut Dariapur, and he makes title to this share, as to 8 annas by purchase out of his private funds, and as to 1 anna 11 gundas 1 krant 1 dunt share by inheritance.2. The contention on the other side is, that he is entitled by inheritance alone and not by purchase; and that his proper share is therefore twice 1 anna 11 gundas 1 krant 1 dunt. The plaint, after setting out the registration proceedings, proceeds as follows: 'I pray that the Court will be pleased to pass a decree reversing the order for registration of names in respect of the 8 annas share purchased and held by me exclusively out of 9 annas 11 gundas 1 krant and 1 dunt share of the above talook; amending the said order as regards the remaining share, directing my name to be registered with respect to the aforesaid 9 annas 11 gun...
Jabbar Meah Vs. Jarfan Khan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-28-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal383
Field, J.1. This is a case of pre-emption. The Munsiff held that the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed because he had not, in compliance with the requirements of Mahomedan law, performed the ceremony of Tulub-i-mowashibat. The Munsiff says in his judgment: 'The plaintiff on hearing this,' that is, on hearing the fact of the sale from his wife,' entered his house, opened his chest, took Rs. 47-4, called the witnesses, proceeded to the premises, the subject of sale, and there cried aloud the following words: 'That he has the right of pre-emption to purchase the said land, and he shall exercise the said right, let the defendant No. 2 receive the refund of the consideration money and make over the land to him (the plaintiff).' The defendant No. 2 refused to accept the offer, on which the plaintiff went with the witnesses to the place where the defendant No. 1 was residing, and there also the plaintiff performed the said ceremony, that is ceremony of Tulub-i-shad. Now, it is clear that ...
Ballodeb Lall Bhagat Vs. Anadi Mohapattur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-25-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal410
Maclean, J.1. This appeal has been made under the following circumstances:The appellant is the judgment-creditor and purchaser at an execution sale which was concluded on 31st January 1882. He purchased the property for Rs. 2,700, and the amount was set off against the amount due under the decree.2. The judgment-debtor (respondent) applied to the Court to set aside the sale under Section 311 of the Civil Procedure Code on the ground of material irregularities in publishing or conducting it. He alleged that the requisite notices had not been published, and also that the decree-holder, appellant, had agreed to give him further time to discharge the debt, and had brought on the sale in violation of that agreement.3. The Subordinate Judge decided that no irregularity was proved to have occurred, but considering that the decree-holder was proved to have practised a fraud upon the debtor in bringing on the sale after agreeing to give further time he set aside the sale. He quoted Subaji Rau v...
In Re: Surat Dhobni
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal302
Field, J.1. The additional evidence, which we directed to be taken by our order of the 11th December last has now been sent up by the Sessions Judge. In consequence of my learned colleague having some doubt, I have very carefully considered the question with which we have to deal. In the case of Res v. Osborne 1 C. and M. 624 referred to in my learned colleague's judgment, Creswell, J., said: 'What the prosecutrix said, at the time of the committing of the offence would be receivable in evidence on the ground that the prisoner was present and the violence going on but if the violence was over, and the prisoner had departed and the prosecutrix had gone on running away crying out the name of the person, it would not be evidence.' That was a case of rape, and I do not understand Creswell, J., to have meant that in order to render the statement of the prosecutrix admissible in evidence, both the presence of the prisoner and the continuance of the violence must have co-existed with the maki...
J.W. Laidlay and ors. Vs. Boido Nath Mashanta and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal433
Tottenham, J.1. In this case we feel constrained, though reluctantly, to hold that the lower Courts were wrong in deciding that there has been service of notice of enhancement upon the defendant No. 1.2. The tenants are four in number, one being a Hindu and the other three Santhals. The Courts found that the notice of enhancement had been personally served upon the three Santhals. There was no personal service upon the Hindu tenant, but it was found that his son, who is an adult, had received the notice. The Courts below have held that this was sufficient service within the meaning of the law.3. Section 14 of the Rent Law provides that the notice shall, if practicable, be served personally upon the ryot. If for any reason the notice cannot be served personally, it shall be affixed at his usual place of residence. The law does not provide that service on any member of his family or any other person shall suffice.4. Our attention has been called by the respondents' pleader to the case of...
Nundun Lall Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-18-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal435
Mitter, J.1. This suit was brought for obtaining an order for partition of certain defined lands measuring 191 bighas 18 cottahs 10 dhure and 7 chattaeks under the following circumstances.2. The lands in suit originally appertained to an estate No. 1212 on the rent-roll of the Collector of Tirhoot. The plaintiff's predecessor in title held a share amounting to 5 gunda 9 annas in the said estate.3. In 1851 this estate was brought under bukvara under the then butwara law, Bugulation XIX of 1814, and the share belonging to the plaintiff's predecessor in title having been separated was recorded as No. 4080 of the towji. The lands in dispute, however, being not then fit for cultivation but covered with water were not divided but left joint amongst all the co-sharers of the present estate, whose shares were recorded in separate numbers. In apportioning the entire revenue payable on account of the parent estate, calculation was made excluding the assets of the disputed lands.4. Recently these...
In Re: Anonymous
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal274
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I am of opinion that each of the deeds submitted for our consideration comes under Clause (6) of the Article 44 of the Stamp Act, and should be stamped accordingly.2. I consider that Clause (a) applies only to those deeds, in which possession of the mortgaged property is given, or agreed to be given at the time of the execution of the deed; or, in other words, where immediate possession of the property is given, or agreed to be given, by the terms of the deed to the mortgagee.3. It seems to me that this is the only construction of Clause (a) by which any meaning can be given to the words 'at the time of execution,' because the agreement to give possession must of course be made in and by the deed itself; and therefore if Clause (a) is to be read, as the learned Advocate-General contends, the clause would mean the same without the words 'at the time of execution,' as with them. Again, if the Advocate-General's view were correct, Clause (a) would be applicable in al...
In Re: NobIn Kristo Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-14-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal268
McDonell, J.1. In this case a rule was granted by Maclean and Norris, JJ., on the 20th December last, calling upon one Russick Lall Laha to show cause why a certain order made by the Magistrate of the 24-Pergunnahs under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and dated the 5th December last should not be set aside.2. The facts of the case are briefly these: On or about the 27th day of September 1881, one Baboo Romanath Laha lent a sum of Rs. 5,000 upon a mortgage bond to a person who represented himself to be one Khirode Chunder Mookerjee. This person was identified by Nobin Kristo Mookerjee, the petitioner now before us. The sum so lent upon mortgage was payable upon the expiry of six months. The money not having been paid, a demand was made on behalf of the mortgagee upon the real Khirode Chunder Mookerjee, who denied any knowledge whatever of the transaction and repudiated liability under the mortgage bond. Subsequently Khirode Chunder Mookerjee instituted a suit in the Civil...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »