Kolkata Court May 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.
Gopal Chunder Sircar Vs. Adhiraj Aftab Chand Mahatab
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal743
Tottenham, J. (Norris, J., concurring)1. In this case the plaintiff, who is the appellant in this Court, was a putnidar of the Maharajah of Burdwan. As a putnidar he had to pay road cess and public work cess, in respect of certain debutter lands lying within the ambit of his putni. He sues the Maharajah to recover these cesses from him.2. In the first Court there appears to have been an admission made by the. Maharajah's pleader that the Maharajah had some right in the lands in dispute. The Munsif says: 'The defendant, admitting his title to the land in question,. urges in his written defence that the plaintiff should have sued the person who is in actual occupation of the lands;' and the Munsif was of opinion that that defence had no foundation in law, that inasmuch as the Maharajah admitted himself to be the proprietor of the rent-free lands he was liable for the cesses. The first Court, therefore, made a decree in favour of the plaintiff.3. On appeal the Subordinate Judge reversed t...
The Oriental Bank Corporation and anr. Vs. Gobinloll Seal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-23-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal713
Wilson, J.1. The case disclosed by the pleadings is this: The plaintiffs were creditors of one Heraloll Seal who died intestate in March 1876. They sue on behalf of themselves and all other creditors. Administration of the estate of Heraloll was in May 1876 granted to his only son Russickloll. In the same month a creditor's suit was brought in this Court for the administration of Heraloll's estate. In June 1876 a decree for administration was made and the usual accounts and enquiries ordered. A report was subsequently made by which it was found that the plaintiffs were creditors of the estate for the debt now relied upon. On the 25th February 1878 Russickloll having died, administration of the unadministered estate of Heraloll was granted to his widow, the defendant Koosummoney, and the suit was revived against her and Russickloll's widow, the defendant Biddomoney. On the 12th August 1878 by a decree on further directions this report was confirmed and the usual directions given. That s...
Tej NaraIn Vs. Behary Loll Doss and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-20-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal764
Tottenham, J.1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Subordinate Judge of Bhaugulpore. Two points have been raised by the learned pleader for the appellant in support of the appeal. The first point is that, upon a true construction of the bond, the clause stipulating for the payment of interest at 15 per cent, per annum upon unpaid interest should have been construed as a penalty clause and not as a clause entitling the plaintiff to such interest as liquidated damages. The words of the bond are as follows: In case of our failing to pay year by year the said sum of Rs. 3,000 the same shall be considered as principal, and thereon interest shall run also at the rate of Re. 1-4 per cent, per month.' No doubt at times some difficulty arises in deciding whether the sum named in a contract to be paid upon a breach is a penalty or liquidated damages. But we do not think there is any difficulty in this case. The law upon the construction of contracts in this respect is thus laid down in Chi...
Jugmohun Mahto Vs. Luchmeshur Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal748
Mitter, J. (Norris, J., concurring)1. The question for decision in this case is whether the execution of a decree, dated 29th April 1862, is barred by the law of limitation or not; the present application for its execution being made on the 25th September 1882. When the decree was obtained the decree-holder was a minor and his estate was in the Court of Wards. It appears that certain proceedings relating to the execution of the decree were taken between the years 1862 and 1866, and on the 5th September 1866 the execution case was struck off. Between that date and the present application no proceeding was taken either by the Court of Wards, or by the decree-holder after he attained his majority, which the Courts below have found was on the 25th September 1879. The lower Courts have decided this question of limitation in favour of the decree-holder. It has been held that Section 7 of the Limitation Act of 1877 entitles the decree-holder to make his application within three years from the...
Mahomed Gazee Chowdhry Vs. Ram Loll Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal757
Richard Garth, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. The plaintiff in the suit was the mortgagee of certain property. He brought a suit to enforce his rights, and obtained a decree for sale; and the property was sold in execution under that decree.2. The mortgagee then applied to the Court to be allowed to bid at the sale, but his application was refused. He, however, notwithstanding that refusal, purchased the property through a benamidar, and the Court, in ignorance of the fact, confirmed the sale.3. The mortgagee then brought this suit against the mortgagor, and other persons who had purchased a portion of the mortgagor's interest, for possession of the mortgaged property, and for mesne profits; and the defence was that the plaintiff had bought the property, not only without the permission, but contrary to the express orders of the Court, and that consequently he had no right to enforce his sale.4. The Judge of the Court below has dismissed the suit upon the ground that the plaintiff was guilty o...
Queen-empress Vs. Uzeer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-15-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal775
Field, J.1. The appellant in this case, Sheikh Uzeer, has been convicted of the murder of his wife, and has been sentenced under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, to transportation for life.2. We have read the proceedings of the Sessions Judge, and we are of opinion that the conviction cannot be supported. The prisoner and his wife were sleeping alone in their homestead on the night of the occurrence; the woman's throat was cut, and she died from the injury thus inflicted, and the consequent loss of blood. The theory of the prosecution is that the prisoner cut his wife's throat. The medical evidence does not support this theory. On the contrary, the native doctor considered that the wound might have been self-inflicted. It may be said that the opinion of a native doctor on a question of this kind is not of very great value, but this is the medical evidence whatever it may be worth. There is no testimony of a medical expert to support the theory of the prosecution that the wound was infli...
Juggut Chunder Dutt Vs. Rada Nath Dhur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-12-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal669
Richard Garth, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. The plaintiff's case is that the defendant No. 1 and a person named Gopal Chunder Dhur opened a shop and carried on business in co-partnership for about three years. Gopal Chunder Dhur then sold his share to the plaintiff; and the plaintiff says that after this purchase he continued to carry on the business with the defendant No. 1, but that the defendant No. 1, in collusion with the other defendants, who are his gohmastas, have been receiving moneys due to the firm, and keeping back papers and accounts in fraud of him, the plaintiff. He, therefore, brings this 'suit against them for production of the papers and for an account.2. Two of the defendants say they have nothing to do with the partnership, and that they are merely employed as gohmastas. But the defendant No. 1 says that the business has been closed since the end of the Bengalee year 1286, and that nothing is due to the plaintiff.3. The Munsif found, as a fact, that the business was clos...
Ramey Vs. Broughton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal652
Richard Garth, C.J. (Cunningham, J., concurring)1. This was an application made by Mr. Phillips on behalf of the plaintiff (the appellant) for a review of our judgment on an appeal from the Original Side.2. The appeal came on for hearing on the 22nd of February last; and an objection was taken by the respondent that the appeal was barred by limitation. 'We thought that the objection was well founded, and dismissed the appeal.3. Mr. Phillips then applied for a review upon the grounds: 1st, that the appellant's counsel were taken by surprise, and were not prepared to argue the point of limitation; and, 2ndly, that we had made a mistake in supposing that the appeal was barred, and that the point of limitation had not been properly understood or argued at the hearing.4. We consider that, strictly speaking, Mr. Phillips ought not to have been allowed to argue the second point at all; because it was fully argued at the hearing, and there was no sufficient reason for our allowing it to be re-...
Secretary of State for India in Council Vs. Sham Bahadoor and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal769
Mitter, J.1. This is an appeal against a decision passed under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act of 1870. The Assessors disagreed with the Judge as to the amount of compensation to be allowed. The District Judge has allowed Rs. 5,129, whereas the Assessors were of opinion that the claimants, the respondents before us in this case, were entitled to a sum considerably less than this. This difference of opinion between the Assessors and the District Judge has arisen in the following way: The land, which is sought to be taken for public purposes on behalf of Government under the Act in question, according to the Deputy Collector, who made the reference to the District Judge, measures 13 bighas odd cottahs. The Deputy Collector was of opinion that the whole of this land is covered by a mokurrari lease granted by the predecessors in title of the claimants on the 1st January 1808 in favour of Government. On the other hand, the claimants contended that out of the aforesaid lands only 7 bi...
Bhugwat Pershad and anr. Vs. Gopi Nath Chobey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-07-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal697
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs (respondents before us) brought this suit for establishing their right to certain malikana money in respect of a 6 annas 17d. 18c. share of dearah Afzulpur bearing touzi No. 71. The previous history of this litigation is as follows: There was a permanently--settled estate, which is recorded in the rent-roll of the Collectorate as No. 319, consisting of a mouzah named Syedpur Mosleh. It is admitted in this case that dearah Afzulpur lies in front of Syedpur Mosleh. The; dearah accreted some time before 1825. Before 1860 in all the settlements which the Collector concluded in respect of the dearah in question, the maliks or proprietors of the permanently--settled estate No. 319 were treated as the; maliks of dearah Afzulpur. Some time before 1860, the owner of the 6 annas 17d. 18c. share, viz., the share in dispute in this case, of both Syedpur Mosleh and dearah Afzulpur, executed two conveyances, one in favour of Rowshun Ali and the other in favour of one Beha...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »