Kolkata Court June 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.
Durga Charan Sen Vs. Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal680
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The only point in this case, upon which we had any doubt, was with regard to limitation.2. 1The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of a one-third share of a property, which consisted of the dwelling house of the defendants Nos. 8, 9 and 10. There is no doubt that this house formed part of the joint family property of a Hindu family, of which there were several co-sharers. The plaintiff was not one of the family, but bought the share in question on the 17th of Pous 1288 from one Shiba Durga, who was the widow and sole heiress of Ram Moni, who was one of the co-sharers.3. So far as the plaintiff's title is concerned, the lower Appellate Court has found in his favour. But it was contended, on the part of the defendants, that the plaintiff is barred by limitation.4. The defendants say that, after the death of Ram Moni, which occurred some 25 or 30 years ago, Shiba Durga left her husband's house, and has since lived with her father.5. But the Subor...
Shamanand Dey Vs. Bhuban Pari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-17-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal699
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The facts of this case are as follow:A certain mouzah in the district of Balasore constituted a mourasi survarakari tenure recorded in the name of Karunakar Pari, defendant No. 7. It has been found as a fact by both the lower Courts that the tenure was previously held by his father Michu Pari, and by his grandfather Edhab Pari. Besides Michu, Edhab left two other sons, who are represented by defendants 1 to 5.2. In 1879 the defendants 2 to 5 brought a suit against their cousin, defendant No. 7, for possession of a share in the tenure, and that suit was decreed in their favour on 3rd June 1880. Five days prior to that decree, however, namely, on the 29th May 1880, defendant No. 7 executed a deed of surrender of the tenure in favour of the zamindar, who is the plaintiff in the present suit. Subsequently, on the 24th September 1881, defendants 1 to 5 sold a share in the tenure to defendant No. 6.3. The plaintiff then brought this suit to have it declared that defenda...
Chooramoni Dey and ors. Vs. Howrah Mills Company, Ld.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-16-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal696
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. This appeal has been preferred by the zamindars of Bagi Shibpore, against a decree of apportionment of the compensation granted in respect of two bighas fifteen cottahs of. newly-formed land which accreted to a mourasi and muhurari tenure within the zamindari by the recession of the river Hooghly, of which tenure the respondents before us are the proprietors.3. The appellants contended that, as the land in question was, under the 1st Clause of Section 4, Reg. XI of 1825, added as an increment to the mourasi tenure of the respondents, they under that clause were bound to pay rent at the full letting value minus a deduction of twenty per cent, as their profits; and that the land having been taken under the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation awarded in respect thereof should be divided in the proportions of 80 per cent, to the appellants and 20 per cent, to the respondents.4. The respondents admitted that they were liable to an increased rent, but contended th...
Champa Kalee Koer Widow of Amar Pertap Singh Vs. Tej Protap Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal96
Wilson, J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff, a Hindu widow, to recover her husband's property in the capacity of heir.2. The defendant is the only brother of the deceased.3. The two brothers, undoubtedly at one time, were the members of a joint Hindu family, governed by the Mitakshara law. If the brothers at the time of the death of the deceased were separate, the plaintiff, his widow, is his heir, and is entitled to recover. If at that date the two brothers were joint, then the widow is not entitled to recover as heir, but the whole property survived to the defendant. And the sole question to be decided is, whether the two brothers were joint or separate at the date of the death of the plaintiff's husband.4. There is no question that, down to the early part of the month of Kartick 1287, which would correspond to about the middle of November 1879, the two brothers were joint. But soon after that, on the 18th February 1880, a document was executed by the two brothers. That docu...
Pramada Dasi Vs. Lakhi NaraIn Mitter and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal60
Richard Garth, C.J.1. We think that the judgment of the Court below should be confirmed; but Upon one only of the grounds, upon which the District Judge has proceeded.2. The facts, so far as it is necessary to mention them for our present purpose, are, that in the year 1871 Brindabun Chunder, by his will, professed to dispose of not only the property belonging to himself, over which he had a disposing power, but also certain property belonging to Gonesh Chunder, who was the husband of the present plaintiff.3. By that will, he devised the whole property belonging to himself and Gonesh Chunder in favour of his nephew, Apara Prosad; and by way of making a larger provision for -the plaintiff than she would have had from her husband's ancestral property, he goes on to say in his will: 'The little ancestral property there is, is insufficient to support my sister-in-law (meaning the plaintiff), so, if she lives with my nephew, he is to support her, or if she does not live with him, he is to p...
Tara Prasanna Mukherji Vs. Hart
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal718
Agnew, J.1. Who, after stating the facts, proceeded.--The first ground of appeal taken before us was, that the suit is premature. The suit is based on the provisions contained in the last paragraph but one of Section 295 of the Civil Procedure Code.2. That section provides for the rateable distribution of assets among holders of decrees for money, and the paragraph in question provides that, 'if all or any of such assets be paid to a person not entitled to receive the same, any person so entitled may sue such person to compel him to refund the assets.' It is contended for the defendant, that as the amount sued for has admittedly not come to his hands, the suit cannot lie, as he cannot be called upon to 'refund' what he has never received; that the cause of action arises upon the receipt of assets by the person alleged not to be so entitled to receive them; and that when assets have not been received there can be no refund. 'For the plaintiff it was argued, on the authority of Goqaram v...
Gend Lall Tewari and anr. Vs. Denonath Ram Tewari and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal673
Richard Garth, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of certain lands, which, on the 16th of August 1878, they had purchased from the defendants 14 and 15.2. In the first Court they obtained a decree; but on appeal to the Judicial Commissioner, he held that neither the plaintiffs, nor those under whom they claimed, had been in possession of the land in question within 12 years before suit. For this reason the suit was dismissed.3. On appeal to this Court it has been contended that the lower Appellate Court was wrong upon this ground.4. In the year 1876, before the plaintiffs' purchase, one Denonath Bam Dobey obtained a decree against the defendants 14 and 15, and under that decree attached in execution the lands which are now in dispute, as being the property of those defendants. Upon this, the defendants 1 to 13, claiming the lands as their own, objected in the execution proceedings under Section 246 of the Procedure Code of 1859, that...
Shoda Nunda Surma and anr. Vs. Gonesh Chandra Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal138
Wilson and Beverley, JJ.1. Two points have been argued before us: first, it was contended that the Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the conditions of the law as to foreclosure had been sufficiently complied with so far as notice was concerned.2. It has been found by both Courts that notice was issued and duly served. But it is said that that is not enough; that there ought to have been some inquiry before the Court, through which the foreclosure notice was served, as to the sufficiency of the service of notice, and some record of its finding: whereas no evidence of the 'service of notice was tendered before that Court, and the case was 'struck off,' as it is described. We think that the lower Appellate Court was right in the view taken by it.3. But another point was raised, und that is this, that under the regulation it is necessary, in order to lay a foundation for the foreclosure proceedings, that demand shall have been made from the mortgagor or his representative. The wo...
Uzir Christian Vs. Eli Seba Christian and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-09-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal651
ORDERRichard Garth, C.J.1. Having regard to the documents which appear on the record of this case, we find it impossible to confirm the decree of the Court below.2. The District Judge, we observe, has expressed an opinion that, in his view of the matter, there is no collusion between the parties. But we think he can hardly be aware what the law considers to be collusion in cases of this kind.3. Section 13 of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) provides that in suits for dissolution, 'if the Court finds that the petition is presented or prosecuted in collusion with either of the respondents, it shall dismiss the petition.'4. This is a similar provision to that which is contained in Section 30 of the English Divorce Act (20 and 21 Vict., C. 85), and it has been held in the English Courts that the word collusion in this section has a far wider meaning than connivance, and extends to cases where the original ground of the petition has not been connived at, but where the parties have subseq...
Halodhar Shaha and ors. Vs. Harogobind Das Koiburto and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal105
Field, J.1. The facts of the case are some what complicated, hut the real question which we have to decide upon this appeal is a sufficiently simple one. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 4 to 6 jointly obtained four rent decrees against Halodhar, Monmohini and others. The interest of defendants 1 to 3 was that of 6 annas, and that of 4 to 6 was ten annas. Rashoraj Shaha, plaintiff No. 1, in the present case, purchased the ten annas interest in the decrees of defendants Nos. 4 to 6, and he applied, under the provisions of Section 232 of the Civil Procedure Code, to have his name put upon the record, and to execute the decree. That application was refused under the provisions of Clause (b). Section 232, it being found that Rashoraj was merely a banami purchaser on behalf of Halodhar and Monmohini, two of the judgment-debtors under the decree. Subsequently defendant No. 1, or defendants Nos. 1 to 3, as has been otherwise stated, obtained a money-decree, on the 6th March 1878, against defendants...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »