Kolkata Court January 1885 Judgments
Gunga Pershad Bhoomick Vs. Debi Sundari Dabea
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-29-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal227
Field, J. (Bevebley, J., concurring)1. The former execution case was struck off on the 31st of January 1880. We have then to consider the effect of three applications. The first of these applications was made on the 14th of June 1880; the second on the 22nd of June 1881; and the third on the 1st of April 1882.2. The application of the 14th of June 1880, and that of the 22nd of June 1881, were merely to obtain payment of money in deposit in the Treasury in account with the Civil Courts, such money being payable to the person of whom the applicant was the legal representative. We think it impossible to say that either of these applications was a step in aid of the execution of the decree.3. The next application was that of the 1st of April 1882. This was an application to get back the copy of the decree for purposes of execution, made by a lady who had not then been substituted for the decree-holder on the record. We think that this application also cannot be considered as a step in aid ...
Tag this Judgment!Soshi Bhusan Chand Vs. Grish Chunder Taluqdar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal694
ORDERField and Beverley, JJ.1. We have heard the pleader for the petitioner in this matter, and we have no doubt that under the provisions of the present law this application ought to have been made within 60 days from the date of the death of the respondent. The law as laid down in the case of Ram Sunker Bhadoory 3 C.L.R. 440 was altered by the amending Act (XII of 1879), which provided that, under Sections 363 and 365, the word 'plaintiff' is to be held to include an appellant. After this amendment of the Code further doubts arose as to whether the word 'plaintiff' in Section 366 of the Code was also to be held to include an appellant see the case of Rajamonee Dabee v. Chunder Kant Sandel I.L.R. 8 Cal. 440. There are other eases in which a similar doubt arose. These doubts were removed by the amended Section 582 of the present Code, in which it is provided that 'in chapter XXI, so far as may be, the words 'plaintiff,' 'defendant' and 'suit' shall be held to include an appellant, a re...
Tag this Judgment!Kumar Dukhinessur Malia Vs. Hara Sundari Debi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal250
Pigot, J.1. This is a suit by one Kumar Dukhinessur Malia against Maharani Hara Sundari Debi for possession of certain property.2. The circumstances out of which this suit has arisen are as follows:--The property in dispute admittedly belonged to Baboo Gobind Prosad Pundit, and was disposed of by his will, dated the 4th Asar 1265, in which he purported to dedicate it to an idol, Sri Damudor Chunder Jew. On the death of Baboo Gobind Prosad Pundit, his widow entered into possession of this property as shebait; and after her, her second daughter Maharani Hara Sundari Debi, defendant No. 1 in the cause. Plaintiff asserts that neither the deceased Baboo Gobind Prosad Pundit, nor his widow, dealt with the property as the property dedicated to the idol, but as family property. Further, he submits that the will is void and inoperative, except so far as the religious and charitable and other gifts contained therein are concerned, and he claims in his own right, and as assignee of one of the hei...
Tag this Judgment!Purundur Mahto on His Death His Son Hem Lal Mehto Vs. Mahomed Hossein
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-26-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal287
Mitter and Pigot, JJ.1. The facts of this case are briefly as follows:--In 1878, execution of a money decree against the plaintiff was taken out, and the property in dispute was attached. On the 15th June 1878, a petition was filed by the plaintiff, objecting to the proceedings in execution on the ground that the decree was barred by limitation. On the 18th November 1878, the Court executing the decree overruled this objection, and the property in dispute was sold at auction for Rs. 90. Against this order the plaintiff preferred an appeal.2. On the 17th December 1878, before the appeal was heard, the plaintiff made an application under Section 311 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity in conducting it. This application was rejected on the 17fch May 1879, and the sale was confirmed on the 21st May following.3. The appeal against the order of the Original Court overruling the plea of limitation was heard on the 5th of July 1879, and t...
Tag this Judgment!Ronuo Maifarash Vs. Peru Bepari and Shaik Taiah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal164
Pigot, J.1. In this matter, as it comes before us in second appeal, we think we are bound by the rule followed by the Chief Justice in the case of Tofail Ahmud v. Banee Madhub Mooherjee 24 W.R. 394. That was a suit by an execution-creditor to establish the title of his judgment-debtor to a certain property which was erroneously held in the lower Court to be moveable property, and which this Court pointed out was in truth immoveable property. Notwithstanding which, the Court held (p. 395) ' that the only question which could properly have been tried in this case is, whether the property seized did really belong to the execution-debtor as against the defendant in this suit.' In this case, that matter has been found as a fact by the two Courts, and we shall follow the case that we have referred to in not reviewing the finding upon a question of fact. That is the first point.2. But secondly, this property cannot be attached, forming part, as it does, of an immoveable property, and having n...
Tag this Judgment!Sri Bullov Bhattacharji Vs. Baburam Chattopadhya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal169
Tottenham, J.1. The respondent's pleader has taken a preliminary objection to the hearing of this appeal. He has contended that no second appeal lies to this Court in this case; and also that no appeal lay in the case at all from the decision of the first Court.2. The subject of the appeal is as to the amount of interest to be recovered under a certain decree. The decree is dated the 13th July 1871. It was passed upon a bond specially registered under Act XX of 1866, and was made under the provisions of Section 53 of that Act. The amount of the bond was less than Rs. 500. The respondent's pleader has urged that, so far as this second appeal is concerned, the original suit having been one in the nature of a case cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and the amount involved in it having been less than Rs. 500, a second appeal to this Court is barred by Section 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has further contended that, by the terms of Section 55 of Act XX of 1866, no appeal at al...
Tag this Judgment!Lala Mobaruk Lal and ors. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Coun ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal200
Richard Garth, C.J. (Prinsep and Pigot, JJ., concurring)1. As regards the first point, which is referred to us in this case, I am of opinion that the noncompliance with the provisions of Section 6, Act XI of 1859, was not a mere irregularity, and was certainly not one of those errors in procedure which are intended to be cured (under Section 8 of Act VII of 1868), by the purchaser having obtained his certificate.2. It seems to me that the substantial ground of complaint on the part of the judgment-debtor was, that the sale was illegal, as having been made on a day on which the Collector had not a right to make it.3. Section 6 declares that 'the day fixed for the sale shall be a day not less than thirty days from the time when the notice of it is affixed in the office.'4. It matters not at what time the notice is affixed in the office, so long as the day on which the sale is notified to take place is not less than thirty days from that time.5. But here the day notified for the sale was ...
Tag this Judgment!Tilukdari Singh and ors. Vs. Chultan Mahton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal175
Richard Garth, C.J.1. I think that the sums in question are not recoverable.2. They are called abwabs by the plaintiff himself, and they are abwabs, as it seems to me, to all intents and purposes; and I consider that the Regulation of 1793, as well as the Rent Law of 1859, intended to put an end to the abwab system, and to render them illegal.3. It has been argued that to abolish this system is contrary to the wishes of both landlords and ryots, and I believe that to be true.4. Landlords often find it a convenient means of enhancing their rents in an irregular way; and the ryots, as a rule, would far rather submit to pay abwabs than have their assul rent increased.5. But the system appears to me to be clearly illegal, and I consider that the Civil Courts should do their best to put an end to it.6. The plaintiffs' suit will therefore be dismissed as regards the disputed items, with costs in the lower Appellate Court and in this Court, as well as with the costs of this reference.Mitter, ...
Tag this Judgment!ina Sheikh Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal160
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. In this case the prisoner has been convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code of dishonestly receiving a brass drinking cup.2. The evidence upon the record clearly establishes that the complainant's house was broken into in October 1883, and the cup, which is abundantly identified as the complainant's property, stolen therefrom.3. There is no evidence to connect the prisoner with the actual house-breaking; and the question we have to consider is whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.4. The cup was stolen in October 1883 and it was not discovered until the 4th September 1884 when, as the prosecution allege, it was produced by the prisoner to the police from under a rangi tree in the jungle. At the trial the prisoner denied that the cup was secreted in the jungle. He alleged that his little boy was playing with it in the jungle; that the Police picked it up and falsely stated that it was ...
Tag this Judgment!Rung Lall and anr. Vs. Hem NaraIn Gir
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal166
Mitter and Norris, JJ. 1. In this case the judgment-debtors, appellants, informed the lower Court that they had paid out of Court to the decree-holder, respondent, Rs. 1,000 in part satisfaction of the decree, and applied, under Section 258 of the Civil Procedure Code, for the issue of a notice upon the respondent to show cause why the said payment should not be recorded as certified. The respondent appeared and denied the receipt of the money. The lower Courts, being of opinion that, under the section in question, the appellants were not entitled to go into evidence to establish their allegation, rejected their petition without taking any evidence upon the disputed question of fact.2. We are of opinion that the lower Courts are in error in not allowing the parties opportunity to establish their respective allegations. The section says that, if the decree-holder fails to show cause why the payment should not be recorded as certified, the Court shall make the rule absolute. It appears t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »