Kolkata Court February 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.
Oliullah Vs. Bechu Lal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal338
Pigot, J.1. This is an appeal against a remand order of Mr. Beveridge dated the 30th July 1884.2. The circumstances out of which this case has arisen are these: Munshi Oliullah sued Bechu Lal for land, claiming it as endowed property and seeking to establish his right thereto as mutwalli.3. The defendant raised several objections : and among them he stated that al the mutwallis should be made parties to the cause. This seems to have beer the view taken by the Munsiff, who, on the 6th day of April 1883, passed the following order: ' I order the heirs of Nezatullah, Sadut Hosein, and Budhr 'Khan to be made plaintiffs in this suit, provided, on receiving notice of 'this order, they consent to be made parties.'4. Against this order, an appeal was preferred to the District Judge, but without success, the order being confirmed. Subsequently, on the 29th September 1883, the plaintiff applied that those persons, who did not consent to be made plaintiffs in the cause, should be made defendants ...
Than Singh Vs. Chundun Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal296
Mitter and Trevelyan, JJ.1. We are of opinion that in both these cases no second appeal lies. The suit of the plaintiff against the defendants was dismissed by the Munsiff. The plaintiff then filed an application for review, and that application was granted by the Munsiff. An appeal was preferred by the defendants against the order, granting a review under Section 629 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The District Judge set aside the order granting the review so far as the respondents in second appeal No. 2925 were concerned, but affirmed the order so far as the appellant in appeal No. 296 was concerned. Against the order of the District Judge, passed under Section 629, these two appeals have been preferred. There is no provision in the Code which allows a second appeal against the order passed on appeal under Section 629. Both these appeals are, therefore, dismissed without costs....
Ghosita Goria Vs. Durga Pershad and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-05-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal284
Mitter and Trevelyan, JJ.1. The ground of appeal that has been mainly argued before us is that the plaintiff's suit being for abatement of rent, it is barred by limitation, inasmuch as it was not brought within one year from the date of the cause of action.2. It is true that the Courts below have tried this suit as one for abatement of rent under Section 19 of Bengal Act III of 1869, but looking to the plaint and the facts admitted by both parties, it appears to us that it is not a suit for abatement under Section 19 of Bengal Act VIII of 1869. The admitted facts are these: The plaintiff held a jote under the defendants and his co-sharers who were jointly in possession of an estate paying revenue to Government. A butwara was effected of this estate in 1877; and, out of the plaintiff's jote lands, a plot of land, measured by the Ameen, fifteen cottahs, fell to the putti or divided share of the defendants. The plaint further alleges that the rate of rent at which he held the jote while t...
Rubbi Roy Vs. Abilak Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-04-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal293
Mitter and Field, JJ.1. In this case we are of opinion that the decree, which was passed, and the execution which followed upon it, did not affect the interest of Abilak Roy. It is true that his elder brother, Jori Roy, as managing member of the family, raised a loan in order to meet certain legal necessities of the family, and the lower Appellate Court has found upon the evidence that the mortgage was binding upon Abilak Roy, who was a minor at that time. But the suit which was brought upon the mortgage bond was not brought against Jori and Abilak, but only against Jori. That being so, the question arises whether the decree, and the sale which followed, would at all affect the interest of Abilak. We think it is quite clear that it does not. The case of a decree being passed against the father acting as the representative of the family consisting of himself and his sons, is quite distinct from the case of a manager acting on behalf of his minor brothers. It was held in a Pull Bench dec...
Ambica Dasia Vs. Nadyar Chand Pal (and on His Death His Sons, Akhai Co ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal172
O'Kinealy and Trevelyan, JJ.1. In this suit one Ambica Dasia, a Hindu widow, sued to recover possession of her husband's property out of the hands of the defendants. During the progress of the case the dispute was submitted to arbitration, and an award was delivered, which was set aside by the Munsif under Section 521 of the Civil Procedure Code on the objection of the plaintiff. The case was then set down for trial, but before judgment was delivered, or any decision was had on the merits of the case, the defendants appealed to the District Judge, who came to the conclusion that the Munsif was not justified in setting aside the award of the arbitrators. He, therefore, decreed the appeal, and gave judgment in terms of the award. Against this decision the present appeal has been filed.2. The question we have to decide in this case is, whether an appeal from the order oi the Munsif lay to the District Judge. In the case of Mothooranath Tewaree v. Brindabun Tewaree 14 W.R. 327 it was decid...
Dewan Bolakiram and anr. Vs. Lala Dilawar Sahai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-03-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal258
O'Kinealy and Trevelyan, JJ.1. This is a suit in which the plaintiffs as mortgagees sue to have it declared that certain properties in possession of the defendants are liable to attachment and sale as the property of their judgment-debtors. The defendants have raised several issues: first, they contend that they are in a position to claim the benefit of a prior mortgage; secondly, they say that, even if that be not the case, still they are entitled to throw the mortgagees on other properties to save the property in their own possession.2. Now, in regard to the first point, we think that the defendants are not entitled to the benefit of the first security; for there is nothing on the record to show the relative dates of the conveyance and the payment of the money; nor is there any finding by the lower Court that they paid the money to the original mortgagee. * We do not think, therefore, that they have shown they are entitled to take the benefit of the first mortgage.3. Then, as to the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›