Kolkata Court March 1886 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. J.A. Charriol and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal642
Wilson, J.1. who after stating the facts, continued as follows: In the Court below it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff Bank that there is no power under any circumstances to add a party defendant on his own application. This content was not pressed before us, and we entertain no doubt that the view liken by the learned Judge on this point is correct.2. And, the Court having this power, the present case is one in Which it is especially desirable to exercise it. The fund is in Court, and by the act of the Court in its order of the 8th February 1882. There is some reason to suspect that at the time then the order of the 8th February 1882 was obtained those who were in charm of the plaintiff Bank knew that bills of lading had been, or were likely to have been, issued in respect of the rice. If so, the suppression of the fact was a very grave matter indeed, and the plaintiff Bank which is trying to get the money out of Court is in liquidation.3. But it was contended before us that t...
Surendra Keshav Rai and anr. Vs. Doorga Sundari Dossee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal686
Richard Garth, C.J. and Wilson, J.1. In this case it appears that Rajah Beejai Keshav Rai died on the 20th April 1879, childless, but leaving two widows, Noboo Durga and the defendant Durgamoni. By his will he gave each of his widows power to adopt a son. He further purported to give all his property to the goddess Unnopoornah, and declared that the two adopted sons should be the shebaits, adding various other provisions. The two Ranis accordingly, on the 20th May 1879, adopted each a son, Nobo Durga taking the plaintiff, and Durgamoni the infant defendant. Nobo Durga died on the 29th July 1884, Quarrels ensued; and on the 4th August 1884 the plaintiff filed his plaint in this suit, in which he claims half of the property of the deceased Rajah under the will.2. It was held by the learned Judge who tried the case that the simultaneous adoptions could not be valid, and that therefore the plaintiff could take no title as the adopted son of the testator. And there can be no doubt that he w...
O. Steel and Co. Vs. Ichchamoyi ChowdhraIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal111
McDonell and Beverley, JJ.1. This is an appeal against an order passed under Section 243 of the Civil Procedure Code. A preliminary objection has been taken that no appeal will lie against an order made under that section, and we have been referred to a decision to that effect in Nihal Chand v. Rameshari Dassee I.L.R. 9 Cal. 214. We are not disposed to follow that decision, partly because we think that, under the definition of decree in Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, the order made under Section 243 did determine a question mentioned or referred to in Section 244, viz., a question relating to the execution of the decree; that is to say, the order determined the question whether the decree should be executed or whether execution should be stayed. In support of this view we find several reported decisions--Kristomohiney Dassee v. Bama Churn Nag Chowdhry I.L.R. 7 Cal. 733 Luchmeeput Singh v. Sitanath Doss I.L.R. 8 Cal. 477 and Ghazidin v. Fakir Baksh I.L.R. 7 All. 73. We are also ...
Lal Miah and anr. Vs. Nazir Khalashi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal696
1. This case merely followed the decisions in Bhasiruddeen Bhuia v. Bahar Ali I.L.R. 11 Cal. 8 and Askar Mea v. Sabdur Mea I.L.R. 2 Cal. 137....
Hursook Dass Vs. Kishori Mohun Rai and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-13-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal696a
Richard Garth, C.J.1. It was contended by the appellant's counsel, Mr. Woodroffe, that the learned Judge had altogether misunderstood the nature of this suit; that it was a suit of a peculiar nature brought under Section 2831 of the Civil Procedure Code; and that it was in the nature of an appeal from the decision of the Subordinate Judge.2. Mr. Woodroffe went so far as to insist that the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, as well as the proceedings in the claim case, were as much the subject of appeal before Mr. Justice Wilson, when he tried this cause, as Mr. Justice Wilson'S judgment, and the proceedings in this case are now before us for the purposes of this appeal.3. In support of this view, Mr. Woodroffe referred us to the case of Mitchell v. Mathura Dass I.L.R. 8 All. 6 decided by the Privy Council on the 19th of June 1885.4. The judgment in that case certainly does contain a statement to the effect that a suit under Section 283 is in substance a suit brought to reverse the orde...
Rabbaba Khanum Vs. Noorjehan Begum Alias Dalim Shahiba and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-12-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal90
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. This rule was argued before us on Tuesday last, Mr, O'Kinealy showing cause against it, and the Advocate-General supporting it.2. The facts of the case, as stated in the affidavit of the petitioner, are as follows:One Mirza Himmat, who was possessed of considerable property in British India, was killed in Turkish Arabia on 26th August 1884; he left four widows, viz., Mussamut Rabbaba, Mussamut Jhabhan, Mussamut Goharunnisa and Mussamut Azmatunnissa, together with a child or children by each. It was alleged by Mr. O'Kinealy that Mirza Himmat left a fifth widow, by whom he had four children; the Advocate-General alleged that the lady, Noorjehan Begum, had been divorced by Mirza Himmat in his lifetime. On 3rd September 1884, the children of Noorjehan Begum applied to the District Judge of Gya for a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860, in which they admitted that their mother had been divorced from their father. On 16th September 1884, Mirza Jurat, one of Mirza Him...
Garden Reach Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ld. Vs. Empress of India C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal551
ORDERPigot, J.1. I think the objection must be disallowed. There is no rule of this Court similar in terms to Rule 48, Order LXV, under the Judicature Act; but by the 707th Rule of the Rules of this Court on the Original Side, it is laid down that 'in all cases in which the rules of the Supreme Court do not sufficiently declare what business or proceedings may be charged for in the bills of fees and costs, or in what manner, and by what steps any part of the business or proceedings ought to be conducted, the taxer of costs is directed to take the rules and practice of the Superior Courts in England as his guide.'2. The English rule is clear, that refreshers are not as a general rule to be allowed on motion heard by affidavit, and this general rule should be followed, as was done by the taxing officer in the present case. It is competent, of course, for the Judge, before whom the motion may be heard, to give special directions with respect to the costs to be allowed of any motion heard ...
Bishtoo Lal Mukhopadaya Vs. Tarini Das Bandyopadhya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal609
Cunningham and Ghose, JJ.1. The question in this case is, whether an application by a judgment-creditor to bring an execution proceeding on the file, and to record his certificate of the payment of a sum of money by the judgment-debtor, is an application to take some step in aid of execution of the decree, within the meaning of para. 4, Article 179 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act. We agree in the opinion of the lower Appellate Court that it is. Section 258 forms a part of the heading E in the Procedure Code, which deals with the mode of executing decrees. Section 257 under that heading provides that one way in which money payable under a decree may be paid is that it may be paid out of Court to the decree-holder. And Section 258 then goes on to specify the mode in which this transaction is to take place, viz., that the judgment-creditor is to certify the payment to the Court. If he does not, provision is made to enable the judgment-debtor to compel him to do so. We must th...
Bholanath Bandyopadhya Vs. Umachdrn Bandyopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal440
1.The plaintiff as an auction-purchaser at a sale for arrears of Government revenue of what is known as a Sunderbunds estate sues to eject defendant as holding without any valid title.2. Defendant states that he obtained a moursi mokurari jungleburi lease from plaintiff's predecessor, which plaintiff cannot avoid.3. The first objection raised is that, inasmuch as there has been no permanent settlement of the lands sold to plaintiff, it cannot be regarded as an estate. The definition of the word 'estate' is given in Beng. Act VII of 1868, and that Act declares that this shall be applied to the Revenue Sale Law of 1859. The property purchased by plaintiff clearly falls within that definition.4. The next objection raised by defendant is that the plaintiff is a purchaser within the terms of Section 52. Act XI of 1859, and that he (the defendant) is accordingly protected because be holds under a lease 'of lands whereon plantations have been made 'We have no doubt that no plantations have, i...
Kanai Lal Sett and anr. Vs. Ram Lal Sett and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-10-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal663
Wilson, J.1. The only question before us is, whether the contention set up by the plaintiffs is a sound one. Before considering the question in detail, it may be convenient to point out very briefly certain prepositions of law about which there is no dispute.2. Gifts are of three kinds--those which convey a present title and interest, and a present right of enjoyment; these which are vested? that is present in interest, but in which the enjoyment is deferred; and those which are contingent, that is to say in which neither title nor right of enjoyment is given at present, but both depend upon future uncertain events. All these kinds of gifts are admissible among Hindus, all are recognized by the Succession Act the Hindu Wills Act, and the Transfer of Property Act.3. All these kinds of gifts may among Hindus be given subject to various restrictions, either inter vivos or by will, and speaking generally, the same law applies in either case. This is explained by the Privy Council in the Ta...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »