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.
Luchmi NaraIn Mahata and ors. Vs. Birajun Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal392
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against a decree in favour of the plaintiff's passed by the Subordinate Judge of Tirhoot. The claim of the plaintiffs was for the recovery of the estate of one Chuttoorbhooj Narain. The (defendant) appellant is the widow of Bhoochunga Lal, brother of Chuttoorbhooj. Purmani Lal father of Bhoochunga Lal, and Chuttoorbhooj Narain, was a uterine brother of the original plaintiffs, viz., Ram Churn and Jairam Lal. The original plaintiffs died after the institution of the suit, and the principal respondents are their legal representatives. Purmani Lal died in the year 1273 F.S. (1866), Bhoochunga Lal in the year 1274 F.S. (1867), and Chuttoorbhooj Narain in the month of Baisack 1280 F.S. (April 1873).2. The plaintiffs alleged that the three brothers, Ram Churn, Purmani and Jairam were joint in food and estate; that Ram Churn separated from the joint family in the month of Baisack 1275 F.S. (April 1868); and that after the death of Bhoochunga Lal, Chuttoorbhooj s...
Gopaul Chunder Chuckerbutty Vs. Nilmoney Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal374
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I entirely agree with the learned Judge in the Court below that the plaintiff has made out no case; and the only reason, why I think it necessary to say a few words, is to explain my view of the argument, which has been addressed to us by Mr. Phillips, upon the plea of limitation. I think it very desirable that there should be no misunderstanding upon that subject.2. The suit is brought to recover possession of a house and premises in Calcutta. The plaintiff claims the property, having purchased it, as he contends, from the Official Assignee, as belonging to a person named Mittunjoy Chuckerbutty (deceased), who is said to have been the absolute owner. The plaintiff's case is that the defendants Nos. 1 to 7, who are now in possession, were tenants on sufferance of Mittunjoy; and consequently that he, claiming through Mittunjoy, is entitled to eject them.3. These defendants say, that they do not hold under Mittunjoy at all, that they are the tenants of the defendant...
In Re: Noorjehan Begum
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal429
Field, J. 1. In this case Noorjehan Begum, the widow of Lieutenant-Colonel Hedayut Ali, deceased, obtained a certificate on the 4th of October 1882, granted under the provisions of the Minors' Act XL of 1858. On the 26th of May 1883, a petition was presented by Amirunissa Begum under the provisions of Section 21 of the Act. This section provides that the Civil Court for any sufficient cause may recall any certificate granted under the Act, and may also for any sufficient cause remove any guardian appointed by the Court. It is clear that any person applying under this section ought to set forth in his or her petition a sufficient cause for recalling the certificate, and that the Court to which such petition may be presented ought to proceed to enquire judicially whether such sufficient cause is established. In the case before us the District Judge, after stating that he had ascertained by prolonged personal enquiry that there were dissensions amongst the members of the family of the lat...
Mahomed Afsaroodeen Vs. Bir Chunder Manikya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal299
Tottenham, J.1. The parties in this suit were purchasers at auction of the same property in execution of two separate decrees. The plaintiff's was the more recent purchase, it having taken place on the 1st July 1868. The defendant's purchase was on the 5th April 1867; but the plaintiff's case was that the decree in execution of which his purchase was made was a mortgage decree, the mortgage having been made and the decree upon it having been obtained previously to the purchase made by the defendant. The date of the mortgage was 21st April 1864, and the date of the decree upon the mortgage bond was 30th December 1865. On the other side, for the defendant, appellant, it is contended that the decree obtained in December 1865 upon the mortgage bond was not a mortgage decree, but a simple money decree, and this has been held by the lower Court. The District Judge, however, was of opinion that, notwithstanding this fact, the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession upon the authority of ...
The Bengal Banking Corporation Vs. S.A. Mackertich
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal315
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the judgment of the Court below, so far only as it concerns the defendant, Sarah Amelia Mackertich. Against the other two defendants the learned Judge made a decree, but refused to make one as against Mrs. Mackertich.2. The claim against her was of this nature.3. By a deed, dated the 1st of February 1880, Mrs. Mackertich gave to her husband, M.J.N. Mackertich (since deceased) a power-of-attorney to sell or mortgage a one-fifth share of a house in Elysium Bow, to which she, was entitled in her own right.3. Being so empowered, Mr. Mackertich in the month of September in the same year, arranged to borrow from the plaintiffs' Bank a sum of Rs. 8,000, and on the 1st of October they lent him that money upon the security of a promissory note of that date signed by himself, and Hem Chandra Bannerjee (the other defendant in this suit) and also signed by himself as attorney for his wife, Mrs. Mackertich. The note was in this form....
Luchmon Sahai Chowdhry and anr. Vs. Kanchun OjhaIn and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-04-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal525
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that the decision of the lower Court dismissing the plaintiffs' suit as barred by limitation under Article 14, Schedule II of the Limitation Act is erroneous. It is true that the plaintiffs in the plaint prayed for the reversal of the orders passed under the Land Registration Act VII of 1876, but that prayer may be treated as mere surplusage. The Civil Court has no power to set aside an order passed under the Land Registration Act. The second Clause (a), Section 89, of the Land Registration Act provides that nothing contained in that Act shall be deemed to 'preclude any person from bringing a regular suit for possession of, or for a declaration of right to, any immoveable property to which he may deem himself entitled,' and that is the clause under which the plaintiffs in this case are entitled to maintain this suit for declaration of their right to the property in dispute, and if they can successfully establish that right in a Civil Court, then under the...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›