Kolkata Court February 1885 Judgments
Mewar Jugjeet Singh and anr. Vs. Rameswar Nath Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal341
Pigot, J.1. The foreclosure proceedings in this case were instituted on the 2nd November 1878. The sale took place on the 16th September 1878. The sale was not confirmed until January 1879, nor was the sale certificate issued until the 3rd October following. But on the authority of the Full Bench decision of this Court of Bhyrub Chunder Bundopadhya v. Soudamini Dabee I.L.R. 2 Cal. 141 it must be taken that the decree-holder became purchaser at the time of the sale, and not at the time of its confirmation or on issue of the certificate. Under these circumstances, he was entitled at the time of the institution of the foreclosure proceedings to due notice. No such notice having been given, no right to bring this suit against the defendant has accrued to the plaintiff under the foreclosure proceedings.2. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed, and the suit dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Gopal Chunder Nath Coondoo and ors. Vs. Haridas Chini and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal343
Pigot, J.1. We think the appeal must succeed on the authority of the cases cited before us namely Gobind Pershad Talookdar v. Mohesh Chunder Surmah Ghuttack 23 W.E. 117 and In re Oodoy Churn Mitter I.L.R. 4 Cal. 411, the case mentioned in the note to that case, viz., Juggut Narain Singh v. The Collector of Manbhoom heard before the present Chief Justice, and the three unreported cases mentioned to us in which the same principle was adopted. The appellants, who are related to the great-grandfather, through the male line, are, for the reasons referred to in the judgment in Gobind Pershad Talookdar v. Mohesh Chunder Surmah Guttack 23 W.R. 117 entitled to the certificate here in preference to the respondents who claim through a succession of persons, one of whom was a female.2. The order of the lower Court must be reversed, and a certificate must be granted to the appellants. The Judge of the Court below must determine any question as to security as he may think fit. The appellants will ha...
Tag this Judgment!NobIn Chunder Kurr Vs. Rojomoye Dossee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal264
Richard Garth, C.J. and Wilson, J.1. Was that the question should be answered in the negative....
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Juggernath
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal267
Tottenham, J.1. It appears to me that Exhibit B, which was submitted to us by the Presidency Magistrate with his letter of the 8th January last, does come within the meaning of Clause 17, Section 3 of the Stamp Act (I of 1879), The signature of Juggernath and the amount, Rs. 405-4, in his handwriting, form, in my opinion, a writing, whereby the debt was acknowledged to have been paid off. I think so because of the place in which this writing appears, namely, against the entry in the debtor's book where the debtor recorded payment of his debt. It is true that we must look to the intention of the parties as to what this writing by Juggernath was intended to import; and upon the evidence I have no doubt that the intention was that what Juggernath wrote should operate as a receipt. I think, therefore, that this writing falls within this definition of a receipt in Clause 17, Section 3 of the Stamp Act.Ghose, J.2. I am of the same opinion. It seems to me that the entry in Exhibit B, coupled ...
Tag this Judgment!Ambler and anr. Vs. Pushong and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-24-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal365
Tottenham, J.1. This was a case under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate deciding it in favour of the second party, and the first party have moved this Court to set aside the order on various grounds.2. In the first place, it was urged that the ease did not properly fall under Section 145 at all, the matter in dispute not concerning any tangible immoveable property; and in the next place, it was contended that if this section did apply then the first party were entitled upon one of the findings of the Magistrate himself to an order in their favour, the Magistrate having found that the first party were actually in possession at the time when these proceedings were instituted. The Magistrate appears to have decided in favour of the second party, because he considered that they were in possession up to within a few days before this case was instituted, and that the possession of the first party had been wrongfully obtained by force.3. It seems to me that the fir...
Tag this Judgment!Nusserwanjee Vs. Pursutum Doss and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-23-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal298
Richard Garth, C.J. (Wilson, J., concurring)1. I think that the preliminary objection, which has been taken to our hearing this reference must prevail. The case is precisely similar to that of Hall v. Joachim 12 B.L.R. 34, to which we have been referred.2. That case was decided under Section 7 of Act XXVI of 1864, which is similar in its terms to Section 69 of Act XV of 1882. In that case, as in this, an application was made for a new trial to two Judges of the Small Cause Court; and on the hearing of that application, the Judges differed in opinion upon a point of law, which was consequently referred for the opinion of this Court.3. The reference came on before the late Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Pontifex, who decided that, if the Judges of the Small Cause Court thought fit to take the opinion of the High Court upon the point referred, their proper course was to grant a new trial, so that the point might be properly raised. But they held that upon the application for a new trial no...
Tag this Judgment!Nundo Lal Bose and anr. Vs. the Corporation for the Town of Calcutta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal275
Richard Garth, C.J.1. This is an appeal against an order made by the Court below, discharging a rule nisi which had been obtained for a writ of certiorari, to bring up an assessment made by the Commissioners of the Town of Calcutta for the purpose of quashing it.2. The rule was applied for by Nundo Lal Bose and Pasupati Nath Bose, who are the owners of a family dwelling-house in Bagbazar Street, upon which the assessment was made; and the ground of the application was, that the assessment was illegal, the Commissioners having made it upon a principle which the law did not allow.3. The learned Judge of the Court below was of opinion that the assessment was made upon a wrong principle; but he considered that in making it the Commissioners were acting within their powers, and consequently he had no authority to interfere.4. The matter has now come before us on appeal; and, as to the facts of the case, or the general law applicable to the issuing of the certiorari, there seems little or no...
Tag this Judgment!Makhan Lal Saha Vs. Markan Chora Saha
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal271
Tottenham, J.1. It appears to me that the Deputy Magistrate was mistaken in supposing that he was precluded from taking up this case by reason of the decisions of his predecessors. The question was whether the obstruction complained of had been erected in a public way. On the first occasion, when an application was made to the Magistrate, it seems that no enquiry was instituted, that is, no judicial enquiry; but the Magistrate simply inspected the place, and upon that inspection determined that the way was not a public way, and therefore refused to interfere. Thereupon the complainant went to the Civil Court, and attempted to show that the way was a private one, and that he was specially hindered by the obstruction. In the Civil Court he failed upon the ground that it was a public way, and that he had not made out a case sufficient to entitle him to relief in the Civil Court.2. In the meantime, while the decision of the Civil Court was under appeal the complainant applied again to the ...
Tag this Judgment!Murari Singh Vs. Pryag Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-17-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal362
Mitter and Trevelyan, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the appeal in this ease must fail. Without expressing any opinion upon the question whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation, we think that upon the facts admitted in this case the plaintiff is not entitled to have a decree setting aside the sale. We think that the ruling in Jan Ali v. Jan Ali Chowdhry 10 W.B. 154 will govern this case.2. There was an order by Mr. Drummond which, under Section 244 of the Code of Civil Procedure, had the force of a decree directing the sale of the property in dispute, and in execution the property in dispute was sold and purchased by a person who was not a party to the suit. That decree was subsequently set aside.3. According to the authority referred to above, this will not entitle the plaintiff to bring a suit to set aside the sale. That being so, we think that the judgment of the lower Courts dismissing plaintiff's suit is correct.4. We dismiss this appeal with coats....
Tag this Judgment!Aghore Nauth Bannerjee Vs. the Calcutta Tramways Co. Ltd.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-12-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal232
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The point referred to us raises the question whether Article 7 of the agreement between the parties can be enforced by the law of this country?2. Under article 6 the Company are at liberty, in case of any breach of the rules by the conductor, to retain the whole of the Rs. 15, which the latter deposited as security for his good behaviour, as liquidated damages for the breach; and they are also in the same way at liberty to retain any wages due to him; and then article 7 provides that the Manager of the Company for the time being shall be the sole judge between the Company and the conductor, as to whether the Company, in the event of any breach of the rules, is entitled to retain the whole or any part of the deposit of Rs. 15, and also all wages due at the time of his discharge, as liquidated damages; and the Manager's certificate in writing is to be conclusive evidence before any Court of Justice that the amount certified to be retained is correct, and that there ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »