Kolkata Court January 1885 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.
Ali JamIn Vs. Anand Coomari
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-07-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal229
Pigot, J.1. The question in the case before us is, what is the nature of the possession of a vendor remaining in possession after the execution of a conveyance by him. That matter seems to have been considered by the Court of Exchequer, in the case of Tew v. Jones 13 M. & W. 12. That case is, in our judgment, an authority for holding that in the case of a sale out and out the vendor remaining in possession, that possession is adverse to the purchaser. That construction is in harmony with the inference to be drawn from Articles 136 and 137, Schedule II of the Limitation Act in this country; and, therefore, having regard to that principle, it must be held that the possession of the defendant was adverse from the 25th September 1867; and that, therefore, when the suit was filed on the 26th September 1879, the plaintiff's claim was barred.2. We should add that the lower Court misapprehended the expression in the language of the judgment of this Court, which, having regard to the alteration...
Mutty Loll Vs. Chogemull
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal344
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The only point that arises in this case is, whether the hundi, which is the subject of the suit, was presented to the drawee within a reasonable time.2. The facts were these: The hundi was drawn in Calcutta by the defendants upon a firm at Jeypore, in favour of the plaintiffs, for a sum of Rs. 7,500 (the defendants and the plaintiff's both residing at Calcutta).3. It was drawn and dated on the 31st March 1881, and was made payable 'on arrival at Jeypore.'4. It was sent at once to Jeypore to the plaintiff's' agent there, and it appears to have reached them on the 5th April; but it was not presented to the drawees until the 29th of that month, and it was returned on the following day, the 30th, dishonoured; a day or two after this the drawees' firm became insolvent.5. I have already said that the bill upon the face of it was made payable 'on arrival at Jeypore'; and I think that meant not payable on arrival at the place, in the sense of its being delivered to the pl...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›