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.
Gonesh Prosad Misser and ors. Vs. Sorbojit Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-06-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal761
Wilson and Tottenham, JJ.1. A preliminary objection has been argued before us in this case, viz., whether this appeal will lie.2. The suit was brought in the proper Court within the Sonthal Pergunnahs in respect of property exceeding Rs. 1,000 in value. It was brought on appeal before the Deputy Commissioner; and he states that the appeal is under Rs. 1,000 in value, The objection has been put in two ways: First, it is said that there is now no provision for an appeal from the Sonthal Pergunnahs to this Court, even in cases above Rs. 1,000 in value. We think that argument is not well founded. The matter depends upon several enactments which must be noticed. The root of the special legislation is Act XXXVII of 1855. That Act says, first, in Section 1, with regard to the districts now known as the scheduled districts, that they are removed from the operation of the general regulations of the Bengal Code, and of the laws passed by the Governor-General of India in Council, 'except so far a...
Chunder Kant Roy Vs. Krishna Sunder Roy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-01-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal710
Richard Garth, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. We think there is no ground for this appeal.2. It is contended, that as this case does not come within Section 48 of the Registration Act (III of 1877), the Court has no right to enforce the agreement of the 20th of February 1881 as against the defendant. It is said that, although the agreement was prior to the purchase by the defendant, still as the agreement was not accompanied by possession, the title under the defendant's registered deed ought to prevail.3. But this argument entirely ignores the doctrine of notice. It is clear law, both in England and in this country, that where a bond fide contract, whether oral or written, is made for the sale of property, and another party afterwards buys the property with notice of the contract, the title of the party claiming under the contract prevails against the subsequent purchaser, although his purchase may have been registered, and although he has obtained possession under his purchase.4. This has b...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›