Kolkata Court September 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.
In Re: Sunder Dass
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-08-1884
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal42
ORDERRichard Garth, C.J.1. Upon the best consideration that we have been able to give to this case, we think that the rule should be discharged. We granted the rule, having regard to the fact that Section 295 of the Code introduced a novel procedure in execution cases, and that the point submitted to us had arisen, so far as we were aware, for the first time.2. We have not had the advantage of hearing both sides; but having heard the learned pleader who obtained the rule, we think that it should be discharged.3. The person on whose behalf he applied, claimed as a decree-holder to share in the proceeds of a sale, which had been made in execution of a decree obtained by another person. There were several decree-holders who claimed a share in those proceeds, and under these circumstances, the Court, under Section 295, is bound to divide the assets rateably amongst all the persons who hold decrees against the same judgment-debtor, and who have not obtained satisfaction of their decrees.4. ...
Bissesuri Dabeea and ors. Vs. Baroda Kanta Roy Chowdry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-05-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1076
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiffs are the howladars of a certain estate, and they have let their land to certain persons as nim-howladars; and the complaint which they make in this suit is, that the principal defendants have entered upon this land in the possession of their tenants, the nim-howladars, have turned the nim-howladars out, and are claiming the land as against them by an adverse title. Under these circumstances, as the nim-howladars have not brought a suit against the principal defendants, the plaintiffs have brought this suit against them for the purpose of having their title declared as against the defendants, and of being put in the same position 'as before,' which was a possession by receipt of rent as against the nim-howladars.2. In order that there should be no mistake about this, the prayer in the plaint is to this effect: 'That on declaration of the plaintiffs' howlai right to the said land, and on ejectment therefrom of the defendants Nos. 5, 6 and 7, who are tr...
Hafizullah Vs. Nani Bibee on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of Her Minor ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1073
Richard Garth, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. We think that the Courts below have not properly appreciated the point upon which this case depends.2. It seems to have been virtually admitted that the person under whom the plaintiff claims was the heir of Ashruff; and, therefore, the question between the parties is the same as if Ashruff had lived, and had made a second conveyance of the property to the plaintiff; so that the point is, whether the defendant's unregistered deed, coupled with possession, is to prevail over the plaintiff's registered deed, which was executed six years after the defendant's.3. The Subordinate Judge seems to have rather misunderstood what was decided in the Full Bench case of Narain Chunder Chuckerbutty v. Dataram Roy I.L.R. 8 Cal. 597.4. The question there was, whether the mere fact of possession having been taken by the purchaser under an unregistered deed was sufficient of itself to establish a good title to the property as against a subsequent registered purchas...
Chotay Lall Vs. Mokund Lall and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-02-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1061
Mitter, J.1. This appeal arises in a suit for specific performance of a contract which was alleged to have been entered into on the 1st March 1878. The suit was brought on the 28th February 1881. The first defendant, according to the plaint, was the party who was in possession of the property in dispute, and who was entitled to it on the date when the alleged contract was entered into. The plaintiff further alleges that it was the said defendant who herself entered into the contract The second defendant, who is the son of the first defendant, is alleged to have received Rs. 100 as part of the consideration money which was fixed, according to the plaintiff, at Rs. 3,700; and the plaintiff stated in the plaint that the second defendant received the Rs. 100 in accordance with the directions given by the first defendant for the payment of that amount to her son. There is another person who was made defendant, viz., Mokund Lall. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendants Nos. 1 and 2,...
Gowri Koer Vs. Audh Koer and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-01-1884
Reported in: (1884)ILR10Cal1087
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover certain property under a deed, dated the 26th July 1870, by which it was conveyed to her by two persons named Ramkhelawan and Lalbehari.2. Lalbehari, it was said, inherited it from a lady named Narain Koer, who died about the month of March 1870. Ramkhelawan had derived a portion of the property from him, and they both professed by this deed of sale to convey the property to the plaintiff.3. It seems that in the year 1871, the plaintiff, as well as Ramkhelawan and Lalbehari, brought a suit against the defendant, Mussamat Audh Koer, to recover this very property, and her suit was dismissed. The case then came up before the High Court, who affirmed the decree of the Court below.Tiff miss page No. 756...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›