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.
Nundo Lall Bhuttacharjee and ors. Vs. Bidhoo Mookhy Debee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-09-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal17
O'Kinealy and Macpherson, JJ.1. It appears that, previous to the present suit, there was a suit between the same parties in which the plaintiffs sought to eject the defendant.2. That suit was dismissed, but in the course of the trial, the Court came to a decision upon the nature of the defendant's holding.3. In the present suit, the plaintiffs seek, anew, to recover possession of the land after notice to quit, and the lower Court has held that the decision arrived at by the Court in the previous suit is binding between the parties; but that as in the previous suit no issue regarding the question of estoppel by conduct was raised, the defendant is not precluded from raising it in the present suit; and on that ground judgment has been given in favour of the defendant.4. The plaintiffs have appealed, and they urge that the previous decision is, as has been held by the Court below, res judicata, and being res judicata that Court was precluded from going behind the previous decision and tak...
Koni Meah and ors. Vs. Noor Ali Chowdhuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal13
McDonell and Beverley, JJ.1. In this ease a decree for arrears of rent was passed against the appellant on the 27th December 1882, and coupled with it an order that if the arrears so decreed were not paid within 15 days from the date of the decree, the appellant should be liable to ejectment from his holding. Against this decree the appellant preferred an appeal which was dismissed on the 17th of July 1883, and within 15 days from that date the appellant paid into court the amount of the arrears decreed; no execution of the original decree having been taken out in the meantime.2. The sole question that arises now is whether the appellant, not having paid the arrears within 15 days from the date of the original decree, is still liable to ejectment under the terms of that decree, notwithstanding the fact that the arrears were paid within 15 days from the date of the decree in appeal.3. Both the lower Courts have found against the appellant on this point; but after taking time to consider...
Sitanath Dass Vs. Mohesh Chunder Chuckerbati and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal627
Richard Garth, C.J. and Beverley, J.1. Gobind being dead, his evidence in the former suit would be admissible in this suit under Section 33 of the Evidence Act, provided (1) that the former suit was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; (2) that the adverse party in the former suit had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; (3) that the questions in issue were substantially the same in both suits.2. We think that the first of these conditions was not sufficiently fulfilled. The Subordinate Judge says that the deposition is not admissible, because Gobind was not a party to the former suit. What the Subordinate Judge means to say is probably this: Gobind's son Eshan, whose interest, as well as that of Gobind, has been purchased by the plaintiff in the present suit, was the ostensible party on the record in the former suit; but the finding of the Court was that he had at that time no interest in the subject-matter of the suit, the real party interested being ...
Shere Ali and anr. Vs. C.L. Prendergast and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-05-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal143
Mitter and Norris, JJ.1. We are of opinion that the view taken by the Judge of the Small Cause Court, Patna, of Section 151 of the Army Act (44 and 45 Vict., c. 58) is correct; and we are of opinion that Major Prendergast's pay may properly be attached in execution of the decree obtained against him....
Hurrosundari Dabi Vs. Bhojohari Das Manji
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-04-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal86
Wilson, J.1. The question raised in this case is, whether an appeal lies.2. The decree appealed against was a rent decree of such a character that under Section 102 of the old Beng. Rent Act (VIII of 1869) no second appeal would lie to this Court. After the date of that decree the new Rent Act (VIII of 1885) was passed, and that Act repealed Section 102 of Act VIII of 1869, and substituted other provisions on the subject. And we may take it, for the purpose of the present point, that those provisions are such that the present appeal would not be excluded by them. The question whether this appeal lies or not depends on the construction of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act (I of 1868). That section says : 'The repeal of any Statute, Act, or Regulation shall not affect anything done, or 'any offence committed, or any fine or penalty incurred, or any proceedings commenced before the repealing Act shall have come into operation.' The question is whether the words,' any proceedings commen...
In Re: Mahomed Mahmud Shah, an Insolvent
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-03-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal66
Norris, J.1. In this case I think the surplus assets in the hands of the Official Assignee, after payment of the debts in full, ought to be applied in payment of interest at 6 per cent, on contract debts which expressly or impliedly carry interest; and that the Official Assignee should retain his commission of five per cent, on the amount of such interest. The balance then remaining in the hands of the Official Assignee should be paid to the insolvent....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- Next ›