Kolkata Court March 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.
Lala Himmat Sahai Singh Vs. Llewhellen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal486
Mitter, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit which was brought to recover the balance with interest of the consideration money due to the plaintiff under a deed of putowa executed by him in favour of the defendant. The putowa recites that the bonus fixed was Rs. 2,000, and it further recites that that amount had been paid to the plaintiff in cash in one lump sum. The plaintiff's case is that, although there is this recital, the whole of the consideration money was not actually paid but only Rs. 150, and the present suit is brought for the balance. The defence was that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover Rs. 1,820 but only Rs. 850, it having been agreed between the parties that the remaining Rs. 1,000 were to be set off against the debt due to the defendant from one Mohadeo Lal, a relation of the plaintiff.2. The lower Courts have allowed oral evidence to be adduced to prove the allegation made in the written statement of the defendant. The Subordinate Judge upon that evidence ca...
Geereeballa Dabee and anr. Vs. Chunder Kant Mookerjee and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal213
Wilson, J.1. In delivering judgment, stated that he wag of opinion that the technical objection to the suit was a valid one, the suit being one purporting to be brought under Section 30 of the Code, and, as such, only permissible when leave to sue in that way had been obtained. He therefore dismissed the suit on that ground, stating, however, that he would have been unwilling to dismiss the suit on such a ground if he had thought that there was any substance in the plaintiffs' case, but as Mr. Pugh had rested his case on the pleadings and had called no evidence, there was no ground for thinking that the suit was a substantial one; and as the next friend of the plaintiff had had an opportunity of calling evidence and of satisfying the Court that the suit was one really for the benefit of the infants, but had chosen to adduce no evidence, the suit must be dismissed with costs against him personally, Khantomoney bearing her own costs....
Mahomed Isuf Meah Vs. Saroda Churn Chuckerbutty and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal376
Pigot and Beverley, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit to set aside the sale of a certain jote in execution of a decree, on the ground that the sale had been brought about fraudulently without proper notification, and at a time when the execution of the decree was barred by limitation. On the part of the defendants it was contended, amongst other things, that no separate suit would lie to set aside the sale. The Court of First Instance found that the sale notification had been fraudulently suppressed, and held that a separate suit would lie to set it aside; and the Munsiff further held that inasmuch as execution of the decree was barred at the time of the sale, the sale certificate, under the proviso to Section 316 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could not operate to create a valid transfer of the property sold. He, therefore, gave the plaintiff a decree.2. The Subordinate Judge, on the other hand, relying on the case of Chowdhry Wahed Ali v. Mussamut Jumaee Suth. P.C. 680 and on t...
Loke Nath Sarkar and anr. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal349
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. We see no reason to differ from the Court below as to the facts found by it. These are that both the prisoners took part in a riot, being armed with deadly weapons; that in the prosecution of the common object of the rioters the prisoner Sachani Sheikh caused hurt with a dangerous weapon to one Kamala Kant Poddar, and another of the rioters caused hurt with a dangerous weapon to one Joydhur.2. Upon these facts both of the prisoners have been convicted under Section 148 of the Penal Code; both have been convicted under Section 324 by the operation of Section 149 in respect of the hurt caused to Joydhur. Loke Nath Sarkar has been further convicted under the same section in respect of the hurt caused to Kamala Kant; and Sachani Sheikh has been further convicted under Section 324 only in respect of the latter hurt caused by himself.3. Separate sentences have been passed upon the prisoners in respect of each separate conviction. The sentences on Loke Nath Sarkar a...
Marjum HoseIn Khan a Minor Through His Mother and Guardian, Bemeharunn ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal359
Pigot, J.1. We think the appeal as to costs must succeed. We think the matter is clearly one in which it is competent to have an appeal, even although it is on a matter of costs, it being one affecting principle.2. We think that the ground, put forward in the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, for the order as to costs is one in respect of which the lower Court is mistaken. It appears to us that the Collector did not unauthorizedly withhold the money from the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed an independent right to demand the money from the Collector in virtue of the petition of the holders of the estate. Under Section 31 of Act XI of 1859 he had not the right in that capacity to claim the money: it was payable only to the recorded proprietor or his representative; or, supposing the proportionate shares to have been ascertained, to the persons recorded as entitled to the ascertained shares, or their representatives. Here, there was no receipt tendered by, or on behalf of, the recorded ...
Lalla Bhagun Pershad and ors. Vs. Holloway
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal393
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. This is an appeal from an appellate order in the matter of the execution of a decree. The applicant for execution had been made a defendant in the original suit by reason of his having purchased the property mortgaged under the bond on which the suit was brought, not because he was himself in any way personally liable for the debt. The petitioner, after the decree had been passed, purchased it and applied to the Court under Section 232 for execution against the principal defendant. The Subordinate Judge refused the application with reference to proviso (b) to Section 232, which is to this effect: 'Where a decree' for money against several persons has been transferred to one of them, it 'shall not be executed against the others.' The first Court was of opinion that this was a decree for money passed against the petitioner in common with other persons, and having been transferred by sale to the petitioner it could no longer be executed against the others. The l...
Koer Hasmat Rai and anr. Vs. Sunder Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-06-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal396
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiffs in this case are the sons of Raja Dunput Rai. It appears that, on the 14th April 1874, Raja Dunput Rai sold the whole of the disputed mouzahs to one of the defendants, and the ancestor of the other defendants, for Rs. 10,000. One of the plaintiffs in this case is an adult, and the other plaintiff is still a minor. The present suit was brought on the 18th July 1881 to recover possession of a 10-anna 8-pie, that is, a two-thirds share of the mouzahs sold, on the allegation that there was no such valid necessity as would justify the sale of the family property by the father while the plaintiffs were minors. If this suit be treated as one for partition, the plaint was open to the objection that the whole of the family property was not included in it. This is not a mere technical objection because on partition of the whole of the joint family property the mouzahs in dispute might under certain circumstances fall entirely to the father's share. For example, if the...
Ramanund Mahton Vs. Koylash Mahton
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal236
ORDERField and Beverley, JJ.1. For the reasons set out by the Sessions Judge, we reverse the conviction of Koylash Mahton, and direct that the fine, if realized, be refunded,2. A Deputy Magistrate placed in charge of the current duties of the District Magistrate's office is not thereby vested with jurisdiction under Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure....
Peary Mohn Ghosaul Vs. Harran Chunder Gangooly
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal261
Wilson, J.1. This was a rule granted under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure to show cause why a decision of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes should not be set aside. The only ground on which it is contended that it should be set aside is the ground of want of jurisdiction. The proceedings show that the suit was a mere suit for trespass, based on the plaintiff's possession. The defence was a denial of possession; no question of title was raised, and I am asked to hold that the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction. No doubt before the present Act the Court had this jurisdiction; but I cannot think that jurisdiction is taken away by the new Act; all that is taken away is by Section 19, but this is not a suit for recovery of immoveable property, nor a suit for determination of any other right to, or interest in, immoveable property. No question of title is raised or determined.2. I think the rule must be discharged with costs....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›