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.
Kristo Chunder Ghose and ors. Vs. Raj Kristo Bandyopadhya and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-08-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal24
Wilson and Beverley, JJ.1. The plaintiffs in this case sue to recover certain property from which they say they have been dispossessed. Their story is shortly this: That there was a permanent tenure of which Kashi Nath was the tenant; that Kashi Nath died leaving the defendant Goburdhan his son and heir; that Goburdhan sold the tenure, and that by several devolutions, which it is not necessary for us to examine in detail, the whole tenure became vested in the plaintiffs; that subsequently one of the defendants, an 8-anna shareholder in the zamindari interest, brought a rent suit, not against the plaintiffs, but against Goburdhan; that in execution of that decree against Goburdhan he professed to sell the tenure to another defendant; and that in consequence the plaintiffs have been ejected from the property, and hence the suit.2. The lower Appellate Court has dismissed the suit in this way,--the Subordinate Judge says: ' I think the plaintiffs in this case have no locus standi. The plai...
Mozari Sajad Vs. Moshingan
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal271
Field, J.1. We think that according to the principle laid down in Balkissen Dass v. Lutchmeeput Singh I.L.R. 8 Cal. 91 there is an appeal here on the subject of costs. The defendant contended in both the Courts below that the Court in which the plaint was filed had no jurisdiction. In that contention he was successful; and we think, therefore, that he ought not to be made to pay the plaintiff's costs; on the contrary he ought to have his own costs in both the lower Courts. We, therefore, direct that he do get such costs. We feel bound to say that this is a matter which ought to have been set right by the Subordinate Judge without compelling the defendant to appeal to this Court. The appeal is decreed with costs.2. The order so far as it directs the plaint to be returned will remain unaffected by our decree. Although there is an appeal on this point, it is not pressed, as the plaint has been returned and the suit is proceeding in another Court....
Radha Pershad Singh and anr. Vs. Phuljuri Koer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-03-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal402
Field, J.1. This was an application to recover by execution the amount of security given for the costs of an appeal to the Privy Council, under the provisions of Sections 602 and 603 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below has held that the execution is barred as against the sureties. The view taken by the Court below, we think confunds two things that are wholly distinct, that is, the decree of the Privy Council, and the security bond. We think, however, that it is not necessary for us to determine whether the recovery of the money secured by the bond is or is not barred, so far as that recovery depends upon the execution proceedings sought to be had in the Court below, because the order appealed against can be supported upon a ground which has been taken by the respondent for the purpose of supporting that order refusing execution. The respondent contends that the proper remedy of the decree-holder is by a separate suit, and that he is not entitled to recover the amount secur...
ibIn HoseIn Vs. Haidar and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal109
Field, J.1. We do not agree with the Judge below that this suit is not maintainable. It is a suit to recover damages for abusive language of a very vile character, alleged to have been used by the defendant to the plaintiff. We do not propose to lay down as a general rule that the use of every kind of abusive language is actionable. But we think that language, which, having regard to the definition of 'defamation' in the Indian Penal Code, is calculated to injure the reputation,--language, which, having regard to the respectability and position of the person abused, is calculated to outrage his feelings, lower the estimation in which he is held by persons of his own class, and so bring him into disrepute, is actionable. We think there is no doubt that the language alleged to have been used in this case comes within this principle. In so deciding we follow several rulings of this Court, namely, Moulvie Gholam Hossin v. Hur Govind Das 1 W.R. 19; Shaikh Tukee v. Shaikh Khoshdel Biswas 6 W...
Dina Nath Mookerjee and anr. Vs. W. Sheriff
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal258
Wilson and Beverley, JJ.1. The question in this appeal is whether the claim in suit, with regard to certain arrears of rent, is barred by limitation or not.2. The particular years, the rent of which is in question in this appeal, are the years 1282, 1283 and 1284. The rule of limitation applicable to the matter is contained in Section 29 of the Act. It provides that--suits for the recovery of arrears of rent shall be instituted within three years, from the last day of the Bengal year, or from the last day of the month of Jeyt of the Fusli or Willayuttee year, in which the arrear claimed shall have become due.' * * * There is no doubt that the rent of these particular years accrued much more than three years before the suit. Therefore, prima facie, the suit is barred. But the lower Courts have held that the particular circumstances of the case take the rent of those years out of the rule of limitation. The lower Appellate Court puts the matter thus: 'No doubt, the claim would be barred ...
Chandra Bhusan Gangopadhya Vs. Ram Kanth Banerji and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal108
Field, J.1. We think the Judge in the Court below is wrong in this case. We have heard the order, dated 25th January 1879, and we think it cannot he treated as an order under Section 281 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The order contemplated by that section is an order made after the investigation mentioned in Section 278. Section 280 commences 'if upon the said investigation the Court is satisfied, &c.;' Section 281 begins, 'if the Court is satisfied, &c.;' 'Satisfied' clearly means satisfied upon the investigation. There was no investigation in this case, the Munsif having declined to make any investigation, remarking that the parties would not be prejudiced.2. We think, therefore, that the one-year's rule of limitation does not apply to he present case. We set aside the decree of the Court below, and remand the case for trial on the merits.3. Costs will follow the result....
Miller, Official Assignee Vs. Runga Nath Moulick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal389
Mitter, J.1. The learned Counsel for the appellant in arguing this appeal before us has urged various objections against this decision, and all of them may be classified under the three following heads:(1) That the decision as to the claim regarding the personal liability of the defendants being barred by limitation is erroneous.(2) That the executants of the bond had full power to create a valid charge upon the family property, and that the appellant is entitled to enforce it against the properties mortgaged, whether the surviving executants of the bond have any right in them or not.(3) That the, construction put upon the two wills of Gopal Lall Moulick is erroneous. That under the terms of the aforesaid wills, the surviving executants of the bond have a subsisting saleable interest in the first two mortgaged properties.2. We are of opinion that the decision of the lower Court upon the question of limitation is correct. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Arti...
Peari Mohun Mukherji Vs. Banshi Majhi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal757
Field, J.1. Two points have been taken in this appeal. The suit was brought to enhance the rent of a certain holding.' The Judge in the Court below held that the enhancement notices and the proceedings taken thereupon were bad because a number of holdings were treated as separate, and separate notices were issued in respect thereof, while the evidence showed that these holding's were consolidated. The Judge relies upon the accounts filed by the plaintiff. He also relies upon certain pottahs. These pottahs in a subsequent part of his judgment lie holds not binding upon the parties, but although they were not binding upon the parties, inasmuch as they were granted by a Hindu widow, it might be contended that they are evidence on the particular point. Whether they are or are not evidence, the Judge is clearly wrong in finding that the annual accounts kept by the plaintiff showed that he treated the holdings as consolidated. This being* so, we think that the findings of the Judge below on ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›