Kolkata Court February 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.
Biswa Sonan Chunder Gossyamy Vs. Binanda Chunder Dibingar Adhikar Goss ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-14-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal416
Field, J.1. The facts of this case are fully set out in the judgment of the learned Judge in the Court below, and it is not necessary for us to recapitulate them. The Judge refers to the following passage in the judgment of White, J. in Barada Sundari Dabea v. Fergusson 11 C.L.R. 17: 'We wish to observe that it cannot be too widely known that when execution proceedings are struck off on the mere motion of the presiding judicial officer, the rights of the parties to those proceedings are not in any way affected. The striking off is not in accordance with any provision in the Code of Civil Procedure. It is done merely for the convenience of the Court, and with a view to diminish the number of eases which might otherwise appear to have been pending in their Court for a long time. When the striking off takes place upon the application of the parties or, after their failure to appear, when they have received due notice to appear, their rights may be affected by the striking off, but whether...
Panye Chunder Sircar and ors. Vs. Hurchunder Chowdhry and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal496
Field, J.1. In this case the appellant is the purchaser under a private conveyance of a taluq or tenure such as that defined in Section 26 of Bengal Act VIII of 1869, that is, a permanent transferable interest in land intermediate between the zamindar and the cultivator. The zamindar, defendant No. 1, brought a suit for rent against defendant No. 2, who was the tenant of the tenure whose name was registered in the zamindari serishta. He obtained a decree, brought the tenure to sale, and himself became the purchaser. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to assert his right to the tenure, setting up a title based upon a private conveyance from defendant No. 2 alleged to have been executed before the proceedings in the rent suit. No intimation of this transfer was formally given to the landlord; and it has not been shown-I may say attempted to be shown-that he was aware of it.2. There can be no doubt that the execution sale, under which defendant No. 1 purchased, was not a sale of the tenure ...
Kristo Chunder Alias Kinoo Lahary Vs. Merjah Janand and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal507
Field, J.1. This was a suit for rent. It was brought upon the basis of a jamabandi or rent-roll which was drawn up by the Collector in previous proceedings under the provisions of Section 38 of Bengal Act VIII of 1869. The only point which has been pressed upon us is that the proceedings of the Collector and the jamabandi drawn up by him were ultra vires, and that the defendants in the present case are not bound by them, because the Collector did not ascertain the existing rates of rent (that being what Section 38 empowered him to do), but assessed rates, which were really enhanced rates. Several previous decisions of this Court have been referred to in the course of the argument by the learned vakeel for the appellant. We think there can be no doubt that if a Collector, professing to proceed under the provisions of Section 38 of the Bent Act, does not ascertain the existing rates, but proceeds to assess rates, in other words proceeds to determine what rates are in his opinion fair and...
Surbomongala Dassi Vs. Shashibhooshun Biswas
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal413
Prinsep, J.1. In this case Surbomongala Dassi, wife of Bhagabati Churn Nag, applied for probate of the will of one Thakomoni Dassi, dated the 12th of May 1881. A caveat was entered by Shashibhooshun Biswas, who objected that the property included in the will really belonged to Bhagabati Churn Nag, his judgment-debtor, and that the will was set up by his judgment-debtor, through his wife Surbomongala Dassi, in order to save the mortgaged property which had been attached, from being sold in execution of the decree. In other words, Shashibhooshun Biswas declared that Bhagabati Churn Nag, in order to defraud him, one of his creditors, had set up a false will and had drafted it in such a manner as to pass the property to his wife. The question that we have to decide is, whether under these circumstances Shashibhooshun Biswas can be allowed to object to probate being granted or not. In the case of Nobeen Chunder Sil v. Bhobo Soondery Dabee I.L.R. 6 Cal. 460 which is the last decided case in ...
Nathu Sheikh and ors. Vs. the Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal405
Field, J.1. The appellant Nizam Sheikh was tried upon the following charge: 'That you, on or about the 21st of May 1883, at Azugerah, in thaiiah Shazedpore, in the course of the enquiry intdlhe cause of death of Abuchi Bewa and Kefat Chokra by the Subordinate Inspector of Shazedpore, stated in evidence, 'I came to the place of occurrence bid hearing the screams of Abuchi Bewa. I saw Mora, Dhanoo and Pana carrying the dead body of Abuchi towards her house,' and that you, on the 14th day of August 1883, at Serajgunge, in the course of a judicial enquiry into the cause of death of Abuchi Bewa and Kefat Chokra by the Joint Magistrate, stated in evidence, ' I did not see Mohar, Panulla and Dhanoo dragging Abuchi Bewa on to her barl by night. I did not hear that night any one call out 'Help ! I am killed.' I did not see Mohar and his companions put Abuchi Bewa's body in the ghar facing east,' one of which statements you either knew or believed to be false, or did not believe to be true; and ...
Harrington Vs. Gonesh Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-07-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal440
Tottenham, J.1. It is unfortunate that in this appeal nobody has appeared for the respondent, and therefore no arguments have been put before us in favour of the District Judge's order.2. It appears to us that the reason given by the District Judge for holding that the suit was not barred by limitation cannot be supported in law. The Judge relies on Section 13 of the Limitation Act, which provides that 'in computing the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, the time during which the defendant has been absent from British India shall be excluded.' He goes on to say 'admittedly Mr. Harrington,' the defendant in this case, 'has been so absent from the date of dispossession till now.' It seems, however, that Mr. Harrington is represented in this country by Mr. Orowdy, who, in the first instance, was made a defendant in the case as manager and mookhtar of the Bhugwanpur Factory.3. If the Judge's interpretation of Section 13 were correct, there would be no limitation at all as agains...
Eshan Chundra Safooi Vs. Nundamoni Dassee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal357
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that the learned Judge was quite right and that what occurred at the trial of the former suit estops the plaintiff from bringing this suit.2. This suit was brought for the purpose of establishing the plaintiff's adoption, and of having the trusts of the will of the late Mohesh Chundra Safooi declared. The former suit was brought, so far as the plaintiff was concerned, with the same object, namely to have his rights declared as the adopted son of Mohesh Chundra. His adoptive mother sued on her own behalf to have her rights declared under her husband's will, and also as the nest friend of the present plaintiff, to establish his rights as the adopted son, and one point raised in the pleadings was as to the validity of his adoption.3. Then what occurred at the trial was this. We understand that no evidence was offered; but that the question of the validity of the adoption was argued by the Counsel for the plaintiff upon the plaint as it stood. The statements i...
Krishna Lall Dutt Vs. Radha Krishna Surkhel and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal402
Tottenham, J.1. At the hearing of this appeal we were disposed to think that the Courts below had committed an error in applying to the case Article 138 of the Limitation Act, although both parties had admitted that the case must be governed by it. And if it had been shown that the formal possession awarded to the plaintiff on the 2nd of July 1869 had been followed by any act of possession, such as the grant of permission to the defendants which is alleged in the plaint, we should hold that this took the case out of the scope of Article 138. But we observe that the Court has negatived the plaintiff's allegation in this respect; and has found that there was nothing but the formal publication of plaintiff's possession. It seems to us, therefore, that the formal possession obtained through the Court having been infructuous, the plaintiff was entitled to bring a suit to obtain actual possession, but was bound to bring it within the period prescribed by Article 138, viz., twelve years from ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›