Kolkata Court December 1885 Judgments
Chandra Kishore Munshi Vs. Dinendra Nath Sannyal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal436
McDonell and Ghose, JJ.1. It appears that the decree-holder in this case obtained against the judgment-debtor a decree upon a mortgage bond, declaring his lien upon the properties hypothecated therein and authorizing the sale of the said properties. This decree was passed on the 15th December 1880 before the Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) came into operation. The decree was, from time to time, enforced without any objection on the part of the judgment-debtor, but upon an application, out of which this appeal arises, having been made on the 15th April 1885, the judgment-debtor objected that, under Section 99 of the Transfer of Property Act, the decree could not be executed, and the property brought to sale, without instituting a suit and obtaining a decree under the provisions of Section 67 of that Act. The lower Court refused to five effect to this objection, and the appeal is against the order of the Subordinate Judge allowing execution to proceed.2. It is contended before us t...
Tag this Judgment!Mathura Lall Bhagat Vs. Taponidi Hordanund Bharati and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-22-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal499
Wilson and Field, JJ.1. The facts of this case sufficiently appear in ttte Judgment of the Court below.2. Three points have been discussed before us. The first is the question of limitation. It has been argued that the suit is barred, because it was not brought within a year from the date of the order of the 30th June 1880. On that point we entirely agree with the lower Appellate Court. This is not a suit to set aside any order at all. It is a suit brought to enforce a right which the law gives to the plaintiff, and which right arose by virtue, among other things, of that order; but the existence of that order in full force is in no sense inconsistent with the right of the plaintiff. It is a suit governed by some one or other of the articles in the schedule to the Limitation Act. It is not necessary for us to discuss under which article it falls, because under whatever article it falls the suit is in time.3. The second point taken before us is this, that, because in this case the defen...
Tag this Judgment!Rajlakhi Dabi Vs. Rajkumar Banerji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal441
Cunningham, J.1. The question raised in this appeal is whether the application made on the 28th March 1884 to execute the decree made on the 19th March 1880 is barred by limitation.2. Two grounds are stated as grounds on which limitation should be held not to be barred. The first is that on the 22nd April 1881 the sale was confirmed. No copy of the order passed or of any application to pass it, if such there was, has been produced before us. As it lies on the judgment-creditor to show us that the period of limitation has not expired, it is his duty, if he wishes to rely upon anything that took place, to supply the Court with proper evidence of the proceedings to enable us to be satisfied that there was any such application: as it is, we can only say that we have nothing to go upon which would justify our holding that any application was made at that time, and we do not consider that a mere order passed in execution, irrespective of any application, should be considered as an applicatio...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Chandra Kant Bhattacharjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal495
Mitter and Beverley, JJ.1. In this case the record was sent for in order to ascertain whether the conviction and sentence under Section 353, as well as that under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code can be sustained.2. It is contended before us that, inasmuch as by its definition in Section 146 of the Indian Penal Code the offence of rioting involves the use of force or violence, the accused cannot be separately convicted and sentenced for the use of the same force under Section 353.3. The facts, as found by both the lower Courts, are that one Ramdoyal Dey, a Civil Court peon, accompanied by Abbas Mirdha and Lal Mahmood, went to arrest one Kashi Chandra Bhattacharjee; that the process was resisted by the accused, and that both the peon and Abbas Mirdah were assaulted in the struggle that ensued.4. The four accused were convicted under Sections 147 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to a separate punishment under each section. Soshi Bhusan Bhattacharjee has also been convi...
Tag this Judgment!Kartick Chandra Pal Vs. Sridhar Mandal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal563
Tottenham, J.1. We think that as regards the house in suit the lower Court was right in holding that the suit was barred by res judicata. It appears that in the former suit between the parties issues had been fixed on the question of title. In that suit the plaintiffs having failed to adduce evidence, which it was incumbent upon them to do, the suit was dismissed; and must be held to have been dismissed on the merits. The learned Counsel who appears for the appellant has cited various cases from which he argues that res judicata does not apply unless in the former suit evidence has been received and formal judgment passed upon the evidence recorded. The cases which he cites do not appear to us to apply to the case before us. In one case in this Court it appears that it refers to a former suit in which the Court had expressly abstained from coming to a decision upon the point in issue. It was therefore held that there was no adjudication and no res judicata. In a recent case I.L.R. 6 Bo...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Bhola Nath Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal427
Mitter and Agnew, JJ.1. The petitioner in this case has been convicted by the Deputy Commissioner of Goalpara in a summary trial of the offence of neglect of duty under Section 29 of Act V of 1861, under the following circumstances:The petitioner, who is a constable in the Goalpara Police Force, was ordered by the District Superintendent of Police to cut down the jungle in the vicinity of the lines occupied by the said Police Force. On his refusal to obey this order, the District Superintendent ordered extra drill every day for the petitioner and other similar delinquents. The petitioner not having attended the extra drill thus ordered has been convicted as aforesaid and sentenced to three months' rigorous imprisonment.2. The offence of which the petitioner has been found guilty is that of neglect of duty under Section 29 of Act V of 1861. 'The section in question does not provide for any such offence. It deals with offences constituted either by any violation of duty or wilful breach,...
Tag this Judgment!Umachurn Bag and anr. Vs. Ajadannissa Bibee ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal430
Wilson and Field, JJ.1. The suit in this case was brought to enforce a mortgage. The plaintiff made not only the mortgagors, but the person who had become the purchaser of the mortgaged premises, defendants. The property sued for is confessedly lakheraj property. The purchaser, the defendant No. 3, alone appeared, and her defence was, that another person, the owner of the estate within the local boundaries of which the lakheraj in question is included, had paid the road cess in respect of that lakheraj; that he had taken proceedings to recover from the lakherajdar the road cess so paid, and obtained a decree; and that in execution of that decree he put up for sale the lakheraj property, and the defendant No. 3 became the purchaser. The effect was, as she says, to pass to her a good title free from all incumbrances, including the plaintiff's mortgage.2. The lower Appellate Court has decided in favour of the defendant No. 3.3. It appears to us that the decree cannot be supported. The mat...
Tag this Judgment!Rajanikanth Nag Rai Chowdhuri Vs. Hari Mohan Guha and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-02-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal470
Cunningham, J.1. We think that under the circumstances of this case the Court below was right in holding that what the plaintiff purchased was an actionable claim. It appears to have been merely a right to set aside a document on the ground that the person by whom it was executed exceeded his powers. Without going any further, therefore, into the question of the meaning of those words under the Transfer of Property Act, we consider at any rate that they cover such a right as the one now in question. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Nanomi BabuasIn and ors. Vs. Modhun Mohun and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-01-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal21
Hobhouse, J.1. This is one of the eases, frequently occurring of late years, which raise questions as to the circumstances under which ancestral estate of a family subject to the Mitakshara law becomes liable to answer the debts of the head of the family.2. This family is one governed by the Mithila law, which, on the point under consideration, does not differ from the Mitakshara. Its head was one Girdhari Singh. He had a wife, the appellant Nanomi Babuasin, and two sons, the other two appellants, who were born before the transactions which gave rise to this suit, and were minors when this suit was commenced. The family are, or were, possessed of valuable ancestral property in land.3. In the year 1870 one Mrs. Collis, complaining that Girdhari had wrongfully ousted her from land held under lease from him, sued him to recover possession and mesne profits. The lease had been granted as part of an arrangement under which Girdhari took a loan of Rs. 45,000 from Mr. Collis, the predecessor ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›