Kolkata Court April 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.
Roghoobur Singh Vs. Nursing NaraIn Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal609
Wilson and Tottenham, JJ.1. We are unable to concur in the view taken by the lower Appellate Court in this case.2. It appears that the plaintiff held two decrees against the same person: one, a mere money decree, and the other, a mortgage decree. In execution of his money decree he caused to be sold the property which was the subject of his mortgage decree; and he now in this suit proposes to proceed on his mortgage decree against that property in the hands of the auction-purchaser.3. The law, it appears to us, has long been settled on this matter; that one who has caused the property of his judgment-debtor to be sold in execution cannot afterwards set up any claim of his own against that property unless he shows that the purchaser purchased with notice of his claim. Several cases have been referred to before us which seem to show that. The first case is the case of Dullab Sircar v. Krishna Cumar Bakshi 3 B.L.R. 407: 12 W.R. 303; the second, which is to the same effect, is the case of ...
Aushootosh Chandra and anr. Vs. Tara Prasanna Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal612
Wilson and Tottenham, JJ.1. This was a rule obtained to show cause why a compromise should not be set aside. It was shown that there were two appeals pending in this Court between the same parties, in one of which the present applicants were appellants and in the other their opponent was appellant. It appears that a petition was presented by the present applicants stating that the matters in dispute in those appeals had been settled by compromise out of Court, and asking in substance that their appeal should be dismissed, and that in the case in which they were respondents a decree should be made against them; and orders were made for decrees to be passed accordingly. The petition did not set out the terms of the compromise. The terms, therefore, could not be embodied in the decrees. The compromise was only referred to. It is now stated that the facts are such that the present applicants are entitled to have that compromise disregarded, and to have the appeals proceed.2. Now, the first...
Joytara and anr. Vs. Ramhari Sirdar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal638
Field, J.1. We think this appeal must succeed with respect to the claim for the widow's maintenance. The Subordinate Judge argues that, because there is no express provision for maintenance in the will, the widow is not entitled thereto; and he considers further that, as she was allowed to retain certain clothes and ornaments, it was unnecessary to give her any maintenance in addition. We think that a gift of stridhan is not equivalent to a provision for maintenance; and the right to maintenance being one which the widow has under the Hindu law, that right cannot be taken away unless by express language to this effect. We therefore set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the Munsif, making an allowance of Rs. 3 a month to the widow as maintenance.2. As to the daughter's allowance, we see no reason to interfere. The appeal will be decreed with costs to the appellant in proportion to the amount as to which she succeeds....
Grish Chunder Prochundo Vs. Wooma Pershad Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal639
Field, J.1. The first point raised in this appeal is, that insanity at the time when the inheritance falls in is not, according to the Hindu law, a disqualification for inheriting, but that according to that law it must be shown that the person who is sought to be disqualified was insane from his birth. We find that this question has been concluded by authority. See the case of Dwarka Nath Bysak v. Mahendra Nath Bysak 9 B.L.R. 198. It was then decided on appeal from the Original Side, that insanity at the time when the succession opens out is sufficient to disqualify. We find that the same point had been previously decided by two learned Judges of this Court in the case of Braja Bhukan Lal Ahusti v. Bichan Dobi 9 B.L.R. 204 note. It was held the other day by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sahye Bhukkut v. Lala Laljee Sakye I.L.R. 8 Cal. 149: 9 C.L.R. 437 that under the Mitakshara law a person who is at the time insane is not entitled to share upon a partition in a jo...
Kashi Nath Chukerbati Vs. Brindabun Chukerbati
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal649
Richard Garth, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. We think that the Subordinate Judge is substantially right in the conclusion at which he has arrived.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff for the rent of certain land upon a kabuliat given by the defendant, which fixed the rate of rent for two years at Rs. 16; and which kabuliat is admitted to have been given by the defendant to the plaintiff.3. The defendant's answer, as alleged in his written statement, was this, that the plaintiff was not the owner of the land at all, and had nothing to do with it; and that the real owner was the defendant himself, who, as well as his father before him, had been in possession of it for many years; but that he, the defendant, had, in collusion with the plaintiff, given this kabuliat to the plaintiff in order that the plaintiff might sell it to some third person for a high price, paying the defendant Rs. 282 out of the price, and obtaining also for him from the purchaser a mourasi pottah for the homestead lan...
Dokhobala Dasi Vs. NobIn Chunder Chowdhry and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-24-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal686
Wilson and Tottenham, JJ.1. The only question argued before us is this, whether property acquired in the name of a Hindu lady, a member of a joint family, is presumably joint family property or not. The property in this case is found standing in the names of two ladies, members of a joint Hindu family and widows of deceased members of that family. An express decision on the point given in 1871 is that of Chunder Nath Moitro v. Kristo Komul Singh 15 W.R. 357. The judgment was delivered by one of the greatest masters of Hindu law who has ever administered justice in this country. And we are not aware that that view has ever been questioned until now. It is said that a recent decision of a Division Bench of this Court is in conflict with this ruling. But it does not appear to us to be so. The case referred to is Chowdrain v. Tarini Kant Lahiri Chowdhry 11 C.L.R. 41 : 8 Cal. 545.2. There the question considered was whether as between a husband or a purchaser at a sale in execution against ...
Koylash Chunder Doss and ors. Vs. Tariney Churn Singhee and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal588
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This suit is brought to enforce the specific performance of a contract for the purchase of a house.2. The lower Court held that the alleged contract was not proved and dismissed the suit.3. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court, and he has relied in support of his case upon two letters, which passed on the 3rd of September 1882, as well as upon the conduct of the parties, and a conversation which occurred on the afternoon of the same day after the letters were exchanged.4. The negotiation, it seems, was brought about by a house-broker named Hurro Chunder Ghose, who knew that the defendant was on the look-out for a house in the particular locality, and proposed to him to buy this one. After looking over a portion of the house, and hearing Hurro Chunder's description of it, the defendant, at Hurro Chunder's suggestion, wrote the following letter to the plaintiffs in his wife's name:To Sreejoot Baboo Koylash Chunder Doss, and Sreejoot Baboo Girindra Nath Doss, Moh...
In Re: Jhabbu Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-22-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal642
Mitter, J.1. We think that the appeal was within time and should have been registered, We accordingly direct it to be registered and heard by the Sessions Judge....
Kali Prosad Singh and anr. Vs. Anundo Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-21-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal677
Tottenham, J.1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagulpore made in a suit brought by the plaintiffs-respondents to recover possession of a ghatwali mehal named Kharna from the defendants-appellants who, or their predecessors, purchased it in 1868 at a sale held in execution of a decree against the then ghatwal, Tekait Meghraj Singh, father of the plaintiff No. 1.2. The plaintiffs' case was that from the nature of the tenure in question and under the principles of the Mitakshara law governing the Tekait's family, the alienation was invalid, and that plaintiff No. 1 as eldest son of Meghraj Singh was entitled to hold the estate on the death of his father. Plaintiff No. 2 joined in the suit as purchaser from, plaintiff No. 1 of five-eighths of the latter's interest.3. The case is in many respects a peculiar one, and the decision of the lower Court partakes also of that character. Both sides have objected to it by way of appeal and cross-appeal.4. In a case of t...
Jan Mahomed and Jabar Mahomed and Waris Meah Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal584
Mitter, J.1. I do not think there is sufficient evidence in this case to prove that the Exhibit A is a false document. The Sessions Judge has relied upon some roobakarees which, on their bare production only, cannot be treated as evidence. Excluding these, the conviction stands mainly upon two grounds: 1st, on a comparison of the seal upon the Exhibit A with that of another document proved to have been executed by the Rajah of Cachar--the Sessions Judge is of opinion that the two impressions of the seals do not tally; 2ndly, the appearance of the paper shows that it is not so old as it purports to be.2. These grounds are, in my opinion, insufficient to support the conviction. It may be that the Rajah changed his seal, and this circumstance may account for the difference between the impressions of the seals.3. The second ground is based upon mere conjecture. Then, even granting that the Exhibit A is a forgery, I do not think that it has been shown that the appellants knew it to be so. F...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »