Kolkata Court August 1885 Judgments
Lal Mohun Chattopadhya Vs. BepIn Behari Moduck and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal209
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this buit claimed the partition of a share in a Hindu family dwelling house purchased by him from a widow.2. The first Court, having regard to the inconvenience which it considered would be entailed on the other members of the family if the partition were allowed, made a decree in favour of the plaintiff only for the sum which he had paid for the share in question.3. The lower Appellate Court reversed that decree and decreed actual partition in favour of the plaintiff.4. The grounds taken in this second appeal are, that the purchaser of the share of a Hindu widow in a family dwelling ,house is not entitled to a partition of that share inasmuch as possibly the Hindu widow had no right to alienate her share; and further that the lower Appellate Court has not followed the procedure laid down in the Code; that, in fact, there has been as yet no decree which can be executed. It is contended that in a suit for partition, if the Court thinks that th...
Tag this Judgment!Byjnath and ors. Vs. Graham and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-31-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal740
Pigot, J.1. In this case there is a point of law determined which did not arise in the other cases heard with it, and on that point, at least, the Judges express their opinion that their construction of Section 103 of the Contract Act is not free from doubt. The case of Ko-khine v. Snadden L.R. 2 P.C. 50 is not without some bearing on the question arising in this application. The several cases heard by the Special Bench are closely connected in subject-matter, and as the Judges in the case alluded to thought the matter fit for appeal, so I think here that the applicants, although not interested to the extent of Rs. 10,000 in the amount of the decree passed against them, still are interested, to a substantial amount, in the question, which must be in issue in the appeals which are allowed as of right. I think, therefore, that I ought to grant a certificate under Section 295 that the case is one fit for appeal to Her Majesty in Council....
Tag this Judgment!iswar Pershad Gurgo and ors. Vs. Jai NaraIn Giri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal169
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. This was a suit brought by the assignees of the heir of the certificated auction-purchaser of certain immoveable property sold in execution of a decree against the defendant on the 22nd of April 1876. The plaintiffs' father was the holder of that decree, and the certified purchaser was Nobin Chunder Mitter.2. The plaintiffs allege that their father was the real purchaser and that Nobin Chunder Mitter was only benamidar for him, and this allegation has been confirmed by a ladavipotro, executed by the heir of Nobin Chunder after the latter's death.3. The plaintiffs claim, therefore, both as heirs of their father who, they say, was the real purchaser, and as assignee of the heir of the ostensible purchaser.4. The lower Appellate Court, reversing the decree of the Munsif, has dismissed the suit on the ground that it is not maintainable. That Court was of opinion that the only manner in which an auction-purchaser or his assignee could obtain possession of the prop...
Tag this Judgment!Guroo Churn Das Vs. Brojeshwari Dasi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-28-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR11Cal735
Prinsep and Grant, JJ.1. We have no power to remit the stamp duty in the matter....
Tag this Judgment!Raj Chunder Dass Vs. Jharoo and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal299
Prinsep and Grant, JJ.1. The plaintiff, in 1877, obtained a mortgage decree in respect of the property now in litigation against his debtor. In execution of that decree, he purchased the mortgaged property on the 5th May 1878. The defendant, at a sale held in execution of a money decree against the same debtor, purchased this property on the 1st April 1878, that is to say, before the purchase of the plaintiff. The plaintiff now sues to recover possession from the defendant, and he has obtained a decree from the lower Appellate Court. It is contended in appeal that the plaintiff's suit for possession should be dismissed, and that he should be left to bring a suit for possession on the strength of his mortgage against the defendant, so that the defendant might have an opportunity to redeem. The learned pleader for the defendant-appellant relies on the cases of Nanack Chand v. Teluckdye Koer I.L.R. 5 Cal. 265; Gopal Lall v. Bolakee I.L.R. 5 Cal. 269 and Bir Chandra Manikya v. Mahomed Afsa...
Tag this Judgment!Ashanulla Khan Bahadur Vs. Rajendra Chandra Rai, for Self and as Execu ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-27-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal464
Mitter and Macpherson, JJ.1. These appeals will be governed by one judgment. It is alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of a zamindari to the extent of seven annas and odd gundas; that within that zamindari there is an ousut taluk called Gungadhur Siddhanto; that the defendant Thunda Bibi and another person held one anna five gundas, and four annas, respectively, of this ousut taluk; that the plaintiff brought two suits for rent due on account of his share in the zamindari from the holders of the two aforesaid shares, respectively; that he obtained decrees, and in execution of those decrees he brought to sale the share of the ousut taluk corresponding with his share in the zamindari, and himself became the purchaser. The plaint further alleges that, subordinate to this ousut taluk Gungadhur Siddhanto, is a howla, and there is also a nim-howla, subordinate to the howla, both belonging to Thunda Bibi. It is further alleged in the plaint that the whole rent payable on acc...
Tag this Judgment!Dinonath Mullick Vs. Girija Prosonno Mookerjee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal133
Wilson, J.1. The petitioner in this case is Baboo Dinonath Mullick. He has obtained a rule to show cause why certain proceedings taken by the Deputy Magistrate of Bongong, under Section 107 and the following sections of the Criminal Procedure Code, should not be set aside so far as they affect the petitioner. The principal ground on which it is contended that those proceedings are illegal is this: it is said that under Section 107, the Deputy Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take such proceedings against a person who was not in any sense personally within the jurisdiction of that Deputy Magistrate.2. The construction of the section taken by itself may not be wholly free from doubt. It is not very clearly worded: and it might perhaps be capable of two constructions. It might perhaps be read as meaning that where a Magistrate receives information that any person, wherever that person may be, is likely to commit a breach of the peace within the local limits of such Magistrate's jurisdict...
Tag this Judgment!Mahendra Lal Khan Vs. Rosomoyi Dasi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal207
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. This case is not distinguishable from those to which the lower Appellate Court refers as having governed his decision that the decree formerly obtained by Sidhi Nazar Ali Khan when in possession as an auction-purchaser is not available as evidence in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, who does not, in any way, claim through that individual; and that decision is in accordance with the ruling of the Full Bench in Gujju Lal v. Fatteh Loll I.L.R. 6 Cal. 171 which we think should in this case be followed.2. The case of Hira Lal Pal v. Hills 11 C.L.R. 528 cited for the appellant, shows that in certain cases judgments not inter partes may be taken into consideration, but it does not pretend to lay down that such judgments can be treated as conclusive evidence, which is what was sought in this case in respect of the judgment and decree in question.3. The appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Tag this Judgment!Deboki Nundun Sen Vs. Hart and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-24-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal294
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. In this case it appears that the plaintiff's father obtained a decree against the defendant Hurish Chunder Ghose. The defendant Hart obtained a decree against the defendant Hurish Chunder Ghose and the defendant Brojendrabala Dasi, the widow and representative of the late Punchanun Ghose, and in execution of his decree sold certain property which belonged to the defendants in equal shares. The defendants Tara Prosunno Mookerjee and Srikristo Biswas also held decrees against the defendants Hurish Chunder Ghose and Brojendrabala Dasi. The defendant Hart drew the proceeds of the sale in execution of his decree out of Court, the claims of the other judgment-creditors to share rateably being disallowed by the execution Court. The plaintiff then instituted the present suit under the penultimate clause of Section 295 of the Civil Procedure Code for the refund and rateable distribution of the assets realized in execution of Hart's decree. The Munsif, on the authority...
Tag this Judgment!Brojo Lal Singh Vs. Gour Charan Sen and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-19-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal111
Prinsep, J.1. The point for our decision in this appeal is simply whether the suit falls under Article 132 or Article 147 of Schedule II of the limitation Act, 1877. The suit has been tried in both the Courts as a suit by which the purchaser of the rights of the mortgagee endeavours to bring the mortgaged property to sale by enforcing his lien, the mortgage being a simple mortgage. It appears to us that a suit of this description falls within the terms of Article 147, and that the suit was consequently not barred. Many other points apparently arise, which on second appeal were re not competent to decide, and in directing the trial of the appeal before the lower Appellate Court, we think that all those points may be raised and properly decided there. The costs will abide the result....
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »