Kolkata Court August 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.
Monohur Das Vs. Kanizak Sukina
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-18-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal204
Mitter and Macpherson, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the lower Courts are right in overruling the objection that the present suit does not lie under the provisions of Section 317 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is found by the Courts below that the property in dispute was purchased by the appellant's mother in her name while the appellant was a minor, in the year 1866; that the mother and not the appellant was in possession; that the mother hypothecated it in a bond executed by her in favour of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff obtained a decree against the mother on that bond, and in execution of that decree purchased this property and obtained possession.2. These being the facts of this case we do not think that Section 317 applies. There cannot be any doubt that if a creditor of the real owner of a property brings a suit for declaration that it belongs to his debtor and not to the certified benami purchaser, it would not be precluded by the provisions of Section 317. That; faction...
Mohesh Chunder Chatterjee Vs. Kamini Kumari Dabia and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-15-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal313
Wilson and Beverley, JJ.1. This was a suit brought against the defendant as heiress of her deceased husband to recover money due upon a mortgage bond executed by the deceased in favour of the plaintiff. In both Courts it has been found that the bond was duly executed. But it is clear that the bond has been altered since the execution by the addition of the names of two persons who did not in fact witness the execution to the list of attesting witnesses. The Munsif found that the alteration had been made by the defendant. The Subordinate Judge has reversed that, finding. He says: 'After anxious consideration I cannot but come to the conclusion that the interpolation was made by the plaintiff.' This finding cannot be assailed before us. He has further held that the alteration is a material one which invalidates the bond as against the plaintiff [defendant?] and has accordingly dismissed the suit.2. The question we have to consider is whether, in the case of a mortgage bond which does not...
Lalit Mohun Singh Vs. Lala Bharub Chandra Karpur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal185
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. The defendant-appellant was the putnidar of Lot Sarangpur, a mehal belonging to the Maharaja of Burdwan. The plaintiff-respondent in this Court is a durputnidar. To protect the putni from sale for arrears of rent under Regulation VIII of 1819 the plaintiff in the month on Joisto 1279 paid in the amount due for patni rent, and in Bhadro following he obtained possession of the putni under the provisions of Section 13 of the Regulation, which gave him a lien on the tenure in the same manner as if the amount had been advanced upon mortgage, in order to recover that amount from any profits belonging thereto. He retained possession until the commencement of 1288, when the Collector ordered the putni to be released in favour of defendant No. 2, who, having purchased the rights of defendant No. 1, paid in to the Collectorate the sum originally advanced by plaintiff with interest to the date on which the latter obtained possession of the putni. The plaintiff brought t...
Anand Singh Monda and anr. Vs. Nonoo Singh Monda
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-14-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal291
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order of the lower Appellate Court remanding the case under Section 562 of the Code, the suit having been dismissed by the first Court on the ground that it was barred by Section 43 of the Code. Other matters were brought to our notice by the appellant's pleader, and he proposed to argue against the order of remand in respect of those other matters, but we confined him to the one point which is before us in this appeal, namely, whether the District Judge was right or wrong in holding that the suit is not barred by Section 43.2. The case set up in support of the first Court's decision was that the plaintiff had previously brought a suit for a declaratory decree alleging himself to be in possession of the property in dispute. That suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not in possession.3. The present suit is brought to recover possession of the same property. It is urged, and was held by the first Court, that inasm...
Aimunissa Bibee and ors. Vs. Nilmony Mookhopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal156
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. It appears that the appellant-defendant No. 1 on the 16th of April 1878 obtained a decree against the defendant No. 2, Krishna Mohun Barik, declaring his mortgage lien over the property in dispute, as well as other properties not in suit based on a bond, dated 17th Falgun 1283, alleged to have been executed in his favour by the defendant No. 2. On the 18th Bhadro 1285, corresponding with the 2nd September 1878, the defendant No. 2 sold the property in dispute to one Ashruf Sheik, ancestor of the plaintiffs-respondents before us.2. In execution of the decree obtained by the appellant against the defendant No. 2, the property in dispute was attached. The plaintiffs-respondents thereupon intervened and claimed the release of the attached property. Their claim was rejected.3. The present suit was brought to set aside the order rejecting their claim, and it is mainly based upon the ground that the bond, dated 17th Falgun 1283, and the decree thereupon, dated 16th Ap...
Bama Sundari Dabai and anr. Vs. Ram Lall Moitra
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal307
Prinsep and Grant, JJ.1. In execution of decree the defendant in September 1876 purchased certain t. property belonging to Sham a Churn Chowdhry. In execution of another decree against the same Shama Churn Chowdhry, the same estate which the defendant claims to have purchased was again attached, and the defendant objected, but his objection was overruled. The execution apparently proceeded no further for the judgment-debtor sold his estate privately to the plaintiff and satisfied this decree and other debts.2. The dispute between the parties arose when proceedings were taken under the Bengal Land Registration Act. Plaintiff's claim having been rejected, he brings this suit for possession of the property with a declaration of his right to get his name registered. Plaintiff objects to the title of the defendant on the ground that the sale was held by the Munsif of Serajgunge within whose local jurisdiction one of the six mouzahs forming this estate mouzah koailberh is situated; that four...
Chundar Nath Dutt Alias Singh Vs. Trailokya Nath Ghose
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-13-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal424
Prinsep and Macpherson, JJ.1. This is a suit for damages on account of slander of the plaintiff by the defendant, inasmuch as the defendant maliciously, in the presence of a large number of villagers, said that the plaintiff was a pode, he being known not to be a pode but a kyasta. In consequence of this it is stated that the plaintiff has lost his social position, his neighbours of his own caste refusing to associate with him, and his priest refusing to perform the usual religious ceremonies.2. The facts alleged1 have been found by both the lower Courts.3. The Munsif dismissed the suit, because he found that the slander was confidentially and in good faith communicated to the priest as a caution, and that the publicity given to it was in consequence of the plaintiff's act in assembling the villagers in order that he might in their presence challenge the defendant to repeat the observation.4. The Subordinate Judge on appeal found that the defendant had acted maliciously in consequence ...
Bhikya Lal Misser and ors. Vs. Raghubar Dyal Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal69
Field, J.1. The plaintiff in this case is one Bhikya Lal Misser, who is the second son of Babua Misser. He has an elder brother, Mokund Lal Misser, and a younger brother, Nursingdut Misser. The father of Babua Misser, Debidut Misser, on the 5th of February 1864, executed a document, whereby passing over his own son Babua Misser, he divided the bulk of his property between his three grandsons, Bhikya Lal Misser, Mokund Lall Misser and Nursingdut Misser. He was able to do this because the property so disposed of was self-acquired. He gave to Babua Misser by the same deed certain plots of land which were ancestral, but which formed only a small portion of the whole property in his possession.2. On the 19th of May 1873 Babua Misser, professing to act as guardian and manager of his three sons, borrowed Rs. 16,998, and executed a bond for this amount in favour of Raghubar Dyal Sahu and Tribeni Lal Sahu. This bond recited that Babua Misser had borrowed this sum of Rs. 16,998 from Raghubar Dya...
Kishori Mohun Ghose Vs. Moni Muhun Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal165
Norris and Ghose, JJ.1. This was a suit for an account, discovery and partition.2. The plaintiff is one of the sons of one Ramdhon Ghose, who died leaving him surviving, besides the plaintiff, three other sons and a widow, and the suit is against those three sons and the widow, for the relief mentioned above, in respect to the estate left by the said Ramdhon Ghose.3. As regards the first two of these reliefs both the Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff is not entitled to them, and we are of opinion that there are no sufficient grounds in this appeal for interfering with their decision in those respects.4. As regards the claim for partition, both the lower Courts have held that the property should be divided into live equal parts or shares, of which the widow and the four sons were each to get one, the widow getting her's in lieu of maintenance.5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that, as it has been found by the Judge of the lower Court that Ramdhon ...
Bhoobun Moyi Dabea and ors. Vs. Shurut Sundery Dabea and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-12-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal275
Prinsep and Grant, JJ.1. The matter before us relates to a partition, through the Court, of certain immoveable property held by the parties. The suit was for partition by metes and bounds, On proof that the parties held respectively certain specific shares. The Subordinate Judge was content with passing a decree declaring the parties entitled to partition as holding certain specific shares, but he has reserved the actual partition by metes and bounds until proceedings taken in execution and an enquiry by a Commissioner. The result has been that the enquiry contemplated by the terms of that order and provided for by Section 396 of the' Civil Procedure Code, has been made in proceedings in execution of that decree. Now, as regards the form of these proceedings, we think that they have been mistaken. The proceedings contemplated by Section 396 are proceedings in a Suit, and, as we understand it, before the passing of the decree, in order to enable the Court in that suit to determine exact...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »