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.
Bisvanath Maiti Vs. Baidyanath Mandul and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal199
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. We have been pressed to set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court in this case upon the ground that the judgment is not in accordance with Section 574 of the Civil Procedure Code, that is, that the Judge has not categorically set down the points for determination, the decision thereupon, and the reasons for the decision. It is said that in the judgment as it stands there is nothing on which the appellant can satisfy himself whether or not he has good grounds for a second appeal The lower Appellate Court delivered a very short judgment in which it confirmed the decision of the first Court. We find upon examination that the only point really before the lower Appellate Court was this, whether or not the defendants were tenants or trespassers in respect of the land from which the plaintiff sought to eject them. The learned Counsel for the appellant has invited us to observe that the case was a very complicated one as set out in the pleadings and issues, a...
O. Steel Vs. Kristo Chunder Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal279
Wilson, J.1. I am unable to concur in the view of the law taken by the learned District Judge. In order to make clear the reasons why I cannot do so, it will be necessary to examine the provisions of Act XXIII of 1863 in some detail.2. The Act is entitled 'an Act to provide for the adjudication of claims to waste lands.' The preamble recites that it is expedient to make special provisions for the speedy adjudication of claims which may be preferred to waste lands proposed to be sold, or otherwise dealt with, on account of Government, and of objections taken to the sales or other disposition of such lands. Section 1 says: That when any claim shall be preferred to any waste land proposed to be sold, or otherwise dealt with, on account of Government, or when any objection shall be taken to the sale or other disposition of such land, the Collector shall, if the claim or objection be preferred within the period mentioned in the advertisement to be issued for the sale or other disposition of...
Brindabun Chandra Kurmokar Vs. Chundra Kurmokar, Guardian of the Minor ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-11-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal140
Norris and Ghose, JJ.1. This was a suit for restitution of conjugal rights, and the only question we have to determine is, whether the marriage set up by the plaintiff is valid according to Hindu law.2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit, being of opinion that there was no real marriage, and that it was not valid according to Hindu law.3. The Sub-Judge in appeal has confirmed the decree of the Munsiff, though upon somewhat different grounds. He holds, as we understand his judgment, that the marriage was real, the gift of the bride was made by the mother, and the nuptial rites were recited by the priest, but he is, notwithstanding, of opinion that the marriage is not valid; first, because the Nandimukk or Bridhishradh was not performed at the house of the bride, and, second, because 'there is no evidence on the record to prove that the bride was made to walk seven steps.'4. There was a further question raised in the lower Courts between the parties which was whether the marr...
Hur Pershad Singh and ors. Vs. Dharm Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal38
Field, J.1. The question argued in this case is one of limitation. It has been pressed upon us that the Judge in the Court below has disposed of the question of the plaintiffs' possession within twelve years with reference only to the presumption arising from the title which the Judge found to be in the plaintiffs. Now if the Judge had pursued this course, he would undoubtedly have been wrong. But beyond all doubt there is positive evidence of the plaintiffs' possession upon the record-evidence to which the Subordinate Judge very distinctly alludes; and it must be borne in mind that the Judge was confirming the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. We think then that what really was done is this: There was evidence of possession on both sides, and the Courts below preferred the evidence given by the plaintiffs, because it accorded with the title which was found to be in the plaintiffs. In doing so, that is in taking this course, they have followed the principle laid down by the Privy Coun...
Maksud Ali and ors. Vs. Newaj
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal131
Ghose, J.1. We see no ground to interfere in this case. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and a third plaintiff, the minor daughter of one Moonshi, who was represented by her next friend the plaintiff No. 2; and the object of the suit was to recover possession of the lands in suit upon the ground that they belonged to the said Moonshi; and that upon Moonshi's death they had devolved upon the plaintiffs.2. The defendant in the Court of First Instance, amongst other things, pleaded that the plaintiff No. 2 was not the proper person to represent the interests of the minor plaintiff; but the Court of First Instance overruled that objection ; and upon the question of title, it held that the property belonged to Moonshi and was in Moonshi's possession up to his death.3. The lower Appellate Court has substantially confirmed the findings of the first Court.4. The learned vakil for the defendant-appellant contends before us in the first place, that, inasmuch as no written p...
Nund Lall SeIn and anr. Vs. Bhugwan Dass Marwari and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-10-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal173
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. The different procedure followed in the Courts of the Sonthal Pergunnahs from that laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure has very much complicated the present case. The suit was one to recover money from the defendants. The first Court dismissed it. Upon appeal, the lower Appellate Court considered that the evidence upon the record was insufficient to enable it to come to a determination and that the evidence of one Baboo Udit Narain Singh was necessary. It, therefore, sent the case back to the first Court in order that the evidence of this witness might be recorded and certified to the lower Appellate Court. So far the Court seems to have followed the ordinary procedure recognised in the Code. After the case had gone down a petition appears to have been presented to the lower Appellate Court requesting that the case, might be referred to the arbitration of two persons named therein. The lower Appellate Court thought fit to refer this petition to the Court...
Gopal Singh Vs. Jhakri Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-07-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal37
Field, J.1. Two points are raised in this second appeal. First, it is said that the Judge in the Court below has received additional evidence without recording his reasons for so doing, as required by Section 568 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and that, therefore, this evidence was improperly received, and ought to be treated as if it were not on the record. We think that the provision of Section 568 as to an Appellate Court recording its reasons for admitting additional evidence is mandatory or directory merely, and not imperative; and we think that the fact that the Judge in the Court below did not comply with this provision (with which most certainly he ought to have complied), does not, however, render the evidence irrelevant.2. The second point pressed upon us is that, inasmuch as the Judge in the Court below received additional evidence, this appeal ought to be treated as a first appeal, and the learned vakil ought to be at liberty to go into the facts; and in support of this ar...
NaraIn Pattro Vs. Aukhoy NaraIn Manna and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal152
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. This was a suit to enforce the specific performance of a contract to sell certain property to the plaintiff for the sum of Rs. 763. It was alleged that Rs. 600 out of the sum agreed upon as the price had been paid in advance, and the plaint contained an alternative prayer that should the Court be of opinion that the contract could not be enforced, a decree may be made for a refund of the Rs. 600 with interest. The defendants in the suit were two minors represented by their mother and guardian. The mother of the minors was the person alleged to have made the contract with the plaintiff, and to be acting as guardian of the minor sons. She had been appointed guardian under Act XL of 1858, and had therefore no power to sell the property of the minors without the consent of the Court. This fact was recognized in the agreement, and the contract to sell was subject to the consent of the Court being obtained. The terms of the agreement were reduced to writing in a do...
Chowdhry Drup Nath Singh and ors. Vs. Bunwari Lall
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-05-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal179
Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.1. This appeal relates only to an order for costs.2. The appellant is described in the plaint as defendant No. 2; and the Courts below, in giving the plaintiff a decree, have ordered that the costs be paid by both the defendants in equal shares.3. For the respondents it is contended that no second appeal lies on a question of costs; and in support of this contention the vakeel refers to the cases of Futeek Parooee v. Mohender Nath Mozoomdar I.L.R. 1 Cal. 385 and Gridhari Lal Roy v. Sundar Bibi B.L.R. Sup. Vol. 496. Those cases, however, go to support the proposition that, when a question of costs is purely in the discretion of the lower Court no appeal will lie. A very recent case The Secretary of State for India in Council v. Marjum Hosein Khan I.L.R. 11 Cal. 359 shows that on a question of principle an appeal will lie against an order for costs; and the same view was in fact laid down in the Supplemental Volume to the Bengal Law Reports, Full Bench Rulings. He...
Hurmutjan Bibi Vs. Padma Lochun Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Aug-04-1885
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal33
Wilson and Beverley, JJ.1. This was a suit to recover from the defendants a share in certain money received by them from Government as compensation for land acquired under Act X of 1870, on the allegation that a portion of the land acquired was situated within the plaintiff's taluk.2. The plaintiff states that she is a purda nashin lady, and that no notice of the proceedings under Act X was served upon her.The defendants raised various objections to the suit, but both Courts have disposed of it on a preliminary issue, viz., issue No. 6, which was as follows: 'Whether the suit can proceed in this Court under the provisions of a special law, and also under the ordinary principles of law? '3. The finding of the lower Courts is that the plaintiff was a party to the proceedings under Act X, and is therefore barred from bringing this suit.4. The facts appear to be these: The plaintiff as one of the persons believed to be interested in the land to be acquired, was served by the Collector with...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »