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.
Nobokrista Mukherji Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council an ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal632
Tottenham and Ghose, JJ.1. The only question for us in this appeal, as argued before us, is, whether or not when certain lands have been determined by a Commission appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor of Bengal under Section 58 of Beng. Act VI of 1870, to be chowkidari chakran lands or other lands before the passing of that Act assigned for the maintenance of an officer to keep watch in any village and to report crimes to the Police, the matter can be re-opened in a civil suit, or whether the order of the Commission is final and conclusive for all purposes as to the character of the lands so described in it.2. The plaintiff-appellant sued to eject the defendants on the ground that the lands were mal lands of his zamindari, and that in a suit for rent and ejectment brought by him against Bungshi Mal, defendant No. 2 and others, his title as landlord had been repudiated, that of the chowkidar having been set up.3. The defence raised was that the lands were chowkidari chakran lands, and i...
Mackertich Vs. Rebeiro
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal628
Pigot, J.1. I regret very much that Mr. Rebeiro, through his own negligence and obstinacy, though through no actual misconduct, (further than the delay he has shown in doing what he was bound to do), should be brought into Court, and that it should be necessary for me to award costs against him. The position of a trustee is undoubtedly a thankless one; and this Court therefore is, and has always been, most anxious to see that he sustains no loss in carrying out a trust, and is always prepared to show to him every consideration in discharge of the duties he is good enough to perform.2. In this case I regret to say that I cannot, gladly as I would avail myself of the opportunity, find any excuse permitting me to relieve Mr. Rebeiro from paying the costs of this suit. There appears to be no excuse whatever for the delay in the execution of the deed which he was bound to execute. It appears that he was fully informed, after a conversation with the cestuis que trust, of the assignment many ...
Kali Prasanna Rai and anr. Vs. Dhananjai Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal625
Mitter and Agnew, JJ.1. Two points have been argued in this case: the first of these is, that the District Judge is in error in supposing that there is absolutely no rebutting evidence against that adduced by the defendant to show that there was a diminution in the quantity of land contained in his tenure.2. The District Judge, it appears to us in the passage referred to above, referred to such evidence as measurement papers, zamindari papers, and other papers of a similar nature. It is not alleged before us that there is any such evidence on the record. There is nothing in the judgment from which we can say that the District Judge has not taken into consideration the circumstance that the defendant's predecessor-in-title did not claim any abatement upon the ground of diluvion. It is quite possible that the District Judge thought that the predecessor-in-title of the defendant was not aware of his rights. We are, therefore, of opinion that there is no force in this objection.3. The seco...
Mathura Das Vs. Nathuni Lall Mahta and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-03-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal731
ORDERPrinsep and Grant, JJ.1. Under the terms of the third para, of Section 294 of the Code, it is discretionary with the Court of execution to set aside a sale in which the decree-holder has purchased without the permission of the Court having been first obtained. In dealing with such a matter, which we regard as an irregularity in conducting the sale, it should be taken into consideration whether any substantial injury has resulted, that is to say, whether, by reason of the decree-holder being the purchaser without permission of the Court previously obtained, an inadequate price has been realized at the sale. The judgment-debtor, appellant, has been unable to show us that the judgment of the lower Court, in holding that there was no such substantial injury, is incorrect. There are other irregularities alleged by the appellant in publishing the proclamations; but it is unnecessary to consider them having regard to the finding that no substantial injury has resulted at the sale.2. The ...
Upendra Lal Mukhopadhya Vs. the Collector of Rajshahye and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal113
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is the assignee of the heirs of one Raj Kristo Banerji, who was employed upon the establishment of the Court of Wards. He brings this suit to recover certain money which was deposited by Raj Kristo Banerji as security for the due discharge of the duties of his office. The suit is brought against the Collector as representing the Court of Wards, and against Surnomoyi Debya, widow of the late Madhub Chunder Sanyal, who now represents the estate which was formerly under the management of the Court of Wards, and upon the establishment for the management of which Raj Kristo was employed.2. It is contended before us on behalf of the lady that the plaintiff has no cause of action as against her, and we concur in this contention. We think, therefore, that the suit as against her must be dismissed with costs both in this Court and in the lower Courts.3. The suit as against the Collector, the Judge below has held to be barred by limitation. We are unable to...
Malchus Vs. Broughton and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal591
Pigot, J.1. The plaintiff claims in this suit that the legacy under para. 5 of the testator's will has lapsed. It has been argued by his counsel that the legacy was intended for St. Paul's School, Calcutta; that the school came to an end; and following the principle laid down in Clark v. Taylor 1 Drew 642; Russell v. Kellett 3 Sm. and G. 264; and & Fisk v. The Attorney-General L.R. 4 Eq. 521 the object of the bequest having disappeared, it must lapse, and that he, as son of the testator, becomes entitled to the fund. Now the question depends, as has been all along admitted by counsel on both sides, entirely on the construction of para. 5 of the will.2. Counsel are not at issue on any question of law.3. I think, on looking at all the terms of this paragraph of the will, I must bold that the intention of the testator was not to make a gift either to or for the benefit of the school but for the furtherance of the education of the sort of persons described in the paragraph as 'two or more ...
Budri NaraIn Vs. Sheo Koer
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal716
ORDERRichard Garth, C.J. and Mitter, J.1. We find that it has been decided by the Allahabad High Court, in the case of Haidri Bai v. The East Indian Railway Co. I.L.R. 1 All. 687 that where the High Courts orders an appellant to give security for costs, the Court may extend the time within which it orders the security to be furnished if an application is made within that time; but if the security is not given within the time ordered by the Court, and no application is made within that time to extend the time for giving security, the Court is bound by Section 549 of the Civil Procedure Code to reject the appeal.2. We agree that this is the proper construction of the section, and we accordingly dismiss the appeal with costs....
Nittyanund Man Sing Vs. Jogendro Bhuputi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal702
Richard Garth, C.J.1. The plaintiff in this case sued to establish his title to the raj and zamindary of Killa Sukinda in the District of Kuttack. The plaintiff's father, Raja Upendra Bhuputi, Harichundun Mohapatra, admittedly died on the 23rd October 1857, leaving (1) a son, Nundkishore by his Rani Nilmoni Patmabadie; (2) the plaintiff, his son, by a woman called Rambha or Chandra Kala; and (3) a third son, Abhirkishore, by another woman called Asili or Raskala. He was succeeded in the raj by his legitimate son, Nundkishore, who died on 5th March 1878, leaving no son but three widowed Ranis, and a daughter by one of them.2. The plaintiff claimed to succeed to his half-brother Nundkishore on the allegation that his mother was a lawful phulbibahi wife of Raja Upendra.3. The three widows on the other hand set up one Jogendro Bhuputi as the heir to the raj, alleging that he had been adopted by the late Raja on the 18th April 1877; and they further pleaded that, even if the adoption was no...
Punchanund Dass Chowdhry Vs. Taramoni Chowdhrain, for Self and as Guar ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal64
Field, J.1. The only point taken in this appeal is that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the rote was not admissible in evidence. The roka was admitted by the Munsif, who was of opinion that it ought to have been stamped; and he require the person who filed it to pay stamp duty and a penalty. Such stamp duty and penalty having been paid, he admitted the document in evidence.2. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the Munsif had wrongly applied the provisions of the Stamp Act. He considered that the stamp which ought to have been put upon the roka was a one-anna adhesive stamp; and inasmuch as this stamp had not been originally affixed, he held that the defect could not be cured by the payment of a penalty, and that the document was absolutely inadmissible in evidence.3. We think that the Subordinate Judge had no authority, sitting in appeal, to review the Munsif s proceeding in so far as it concerned the admission of the roka in evidence. The new Stamp Act, I of...
Nur Kadir Vs. Zuleikha Bibi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal649
Richard Garth, C.J. and Mitter, J.1. This was a suit brought by the appellant, a Mahomedan, for the recovery of possession of his minor wife, Mehr-un-nissa. It is not disputed that defendant No. 2, Masraf Ali, and defendant No. 3, Asraf Ali, are agnates of the same degree with Mehr-un-nissa's father. The minor girl, it is also admitted, is living with her mother Zuleikha Bibi, defendant No. 5.2. The plaintiff's case is, that Asmat Ali gave Mehr-un-nissa in marriage to him, and promised to send her to the plaintiff's house in the month of Jeyt following the marriage. According to this arrangement Mehr-un-nissa not having been sent to the plaintiff's house, the plaintiff has brought the present suit.3. On behalf of the defendants, both the factum and the validity of the marriage were denied.4. The Munsiff dismissed the suit, upon two grounds, viz. (1) that the marriage was not established; and (2) that even if it took place, Mehr-un-nissa, according to the Mahomedan law, being quite at l...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›