Kolkata Court July 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.
The Oriental Bank Corporation Vs. T.F. Brown and Co. Limited
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal265
Pigot, J.1. That can be done, and they should be described as I have indicated. Let costs be costs in the cause. Let all the documents be numbered as directed in Bewicke v. Graham 7 Q.B.D. 400....
In Re: Rajendro Chunder Roy Chowdhry and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-20-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal737
Prinsep, J.1. The order binding over the petitioners to keep the peace must be set aside. It appears that these persons were not within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate of Backergunge, but that they were within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate of Furreedpore, and it has been found that they are likely to commit a breach of the peace within the district of Backergunge. Under such circumstances, as held by a Pull Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Joy Prokash Lall I.L.R. 6 All. 26 and several decisions of this Court, these persons cannot be bound over by the Magistrate of Backergunge. The proper course for him to take, if he thinks there is evidence that they are likely to commit a breach of the peace within the district of Backergunge, is to have information laid before the Magistrate of Furreedpore, and have evidence in support thereof forthcoming, so that proceedings may be taken by a Court of competent jurisdiction....
Jhalo Bibi and anr. Minor by Her Guardian and Next Friend Jhalo Bibi V ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal48
Wilson and Beverley, JJ.1. We see no ground for interfering in this case.Two points have been raised in this appeal: first, that the first plaintiff had no authority to represent the Second plaintiff, her minor daughter. But. the finding on the first issue is to the effect that the Court did give sanction to the lady to represent her minor daughter. That, we think, is sufficient on the authority of the case of Durga Charan Shaha v. Nilmoney Dass I.L.R. 10 Cal. 134.2. Another point taken is an objection to the form in which the suit was brought. The first plaintiff purports to sue for herself and as guardian of her minor daughter. The suit ought to have been brought by Jhalo Bibi, and by her minor daughter Safina Bibi by Jhalo Bibi, her mother and next friend. But the objection was not taken at any stage of the case to that incorrect description. No one appears to have been misled by it. Everybody proceeded on the understanding that what was meant was that the minor appeared by her moth...
Peari Mohun Mukerji Vs. Drobomoyi Dabia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal745
Cunninghamand, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, Peari Mohun Mukerji, sues the defendants, Girish Chunder Chatterji and others, for khas possession. The plaintiff alleges that the lands in dispute are lands within his seputni, and that the defendants have no right or title to them. The defendants set up, first, that they have been more than twelve years in possession of the lands; secondly, that, with the exception of the plots mentioned in paragraph 2 of their written statement, the lands claimed by the plaintiff are held by them as their ayma; and thirdly, that of the plots mentioned in paragraph 2 of their written statement, some belong to other mouzahs, and some to certain lakhirajdars whose names are not given. The Subordinate Judge was of 'opinion that the defendants had proved their title to the lands; that the settlement [statement?] made by the plaintiff, or by the people^ who carried on the case for him, that he was in possession of the lands, was false; and he came to the con...
Mosai Santal Vs. Ram Chand Dutt
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal738
ORDERTottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. It appears to us that this rule must be made absolute. The suit in question was not such as is cognizable by a Small Cause Court. It does not appear to come within the description given in Section 6 of Act XI of 1865 of suits cognizable by Courts of Small Causes. Baboo Bhobani Charan Butt, who appeared to show cause against therule, argued that the suit was practically for damages. The plaint did not purport to be for damages, although the plaintiff did allege that the money had been obtained from him by force. Had that been so, possibly we might have held that the suit was for damages. But even if the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the misapprehension that it was for damages, it had no jurisdiction to grant a decree when it had ascertained on trial what the facts really were. The facts found and set out in the judgment of the Court below are quite sufficient to show that that Court had no jurisdiction to grant a decree. T...
Shama Charan Das Vs. Joyenoolah and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal750
Wilson and Beverley, JJ.1. This was a suit brought under Section 77 of the Registration Act to compel registration of an alleged mortgage bond.2. The bond was executed by the defendants on the 10th June 1882. It was presented for registration by the plaintiff, the mortgagee, on the 6th October of the same year. It was then found by the Sub-Registrar to whom it was presented, that the stamp on the document was insufficient. The Sub-Registrar, acting under the directions contained in the Stamp Act, impounded the document and sent it to the Collector. The Collector thereupon issued an order directing that the deficiency of stamp duty, with a penalty, should be paid by the person who was bound to pay the stamp duty on the document, that is to say, the defendants. It is not necessary to go into details of what happened with reference to that matter. It is enough to say that the money not having been recovered from the defendants, the executants of the document, the plaintiff ultimately paid...
In Re: Solomon
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-16-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal767
Norris, J.1. In this case Mr. Bonnerjee obtained a rule on behalf of the defendant, calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why I should not grant a review of judgment.2. The suit originally came on for hearing on the 29th January last. Mr. Phillips and Mr. Hill appeared for the Plaintiff'. Mr. Bonnerjee and Mr. Gasper for the Defendant.3. Mr. Phillips opened the plaintiff's ease and stated that his client's title depended upon a conveyance, dated 19th March 1883, which he said conveyed the whole of the premises, 43, Ram Mohun Ghose's Lane, to his client, and suggested that the only issue to be tried was 'is the plaintiff claiming under Khoja Abdool Aziz' entitled to possession4. Mr. Bonnerjee asked me to try certain other issues which he named, and I adjourned the case until the 5th February to consider whether I ought to allow those issues to be raised.5. On 5th February I decided against Mr. Bonnerjee, and the trial proceeded.6. Mr. Hill produced the conveyance of 19th March 1883, ...
Hurendro NaraIn Singh Chowdhry Vs. Bhobani Prea Baruani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-13-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal762
ORDERPrinsep and Grant, JJ.1. This matter has already been before another Division Bench of this Court. It relates to a dispute between two zamindars regarding a forest. On a former occasion the Deputy Commissioner, finding that there were disputes -regarding this forest, directed the Collector to assume possession until one of the contending parties had established his right to it in the Civil Court. This order was set aside in March last by a Division Bench of this Court, which held that it was the duty of the Deputy Commissioner to give the parties an opportunity of proving their possession of the forest in a proceeding regularly held under Section 145, and having the parties then before it, The High Court directed such proceedings to be initiated.2. It would have been fruitless to enquire which of the parties at the time that this order was passed was in actual possession, inasmuch as the possession was admittedly with the Collector, and therefore, as we understand it, the object o...
Gobind Chunder Addi and anr. Vs. Jogendro Nath Sircar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal252
Mitter and Ghose, JJ.1. The ground upon which the Additional Judge has decided this case implies that, until the date of the confirmation of sale, the judgment-creditor was not entitled to take out the sale proceeds of the properties sold in execution. We are of opinion that this view of the law is not strictly correct. It does not necessarily follow that, because the title of the execution purchaser dates from the date of the confirmation of sale, and the judgment-debtor continues to receive the profits of the property sold up to that date, the judgment-creditor is not entitled to draw out from Court the money realized by the sale. This view of the Additional Judge is negatived by the provisions of Section 315 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which says: 'When a sale of immoveable property is set aside under Section 312 or 313, or when it is found that the judgment-debtor had no saleable interest in the property which purported to be sold, and the purchaser is for that reason deprived ...
Ram Chunder Singh Vs. Madho Kumari and ors. by the Court of Wards
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal484
Monkswell, J.1. Thekait Ram Chunder Singh, ghatwal of a large estate named Pathrole, brings this action to eject from Lalghur, a subordinate tenure within its ambit, the defendants, who are widows of the last holder of it, Bunwari Singh, and are under the protection of the Court of Wards, He claims the right to resume that tenure at will, and further asserts that his right to this resumption has been conclusively decided in a previous suit between the same parties. The defendants claim to hold a ghatwali tenure, from which they could not be dispossessed, on the payment of a fixed rent; they deny that the question had been decided as alleged, and set up the plea of limitation. The Subordinate Judge found for the defendants on the plea of res judicata and for the plaintiff on the plea of limitation, and gave the plaintiff a decree on the ground that the tenure was resumable at will.2. The High Court reversed this judgment, finding for the defendants on the plea of limitation only. From t...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »