Kolkata Court April 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.
Gowri Prosad Kundu and ors. Vs. Ram Ratan Sircar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-19-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal159
McDonell and Beverley, JJ.1. On appeal the Additional Judge held that the suit was not barred by limitation, but that it was bad on the second ground.Against this latter finding, the plaintiffs have preferred a second appeal' and the respondents seek to uphold the decree of the lower Appellate Court on the ground of limitation. It is contended that they are not at liberty to do this, not having given notice to the other side under the provisions of Section 561 of the Code; but we think that, under the terms of that section, it was not necessary to give the appellants notice.2. The Judge has disposed of the question of limitation, relying on the authority of the case of Ram Kishan v. Bhawani Dass I.L.R. 1 All. 333; but the circumstances of that case were different from those of the present, and the decision is, therefore, not applicable. In that case it was held that a suit to recover the sale proceeds paid away under an order of the Judge, which was made without jurisdiction, was not a...
Kalachand Sircar and ors. Vs. Queen-empress
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-16-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal53
Wilson, J.1. The English law at the time the last case was decided was entirely different to the law out here. I refer to that ease for the conclusion that you were formerly not allowed to do away with the effect of such evidence.1. The Sessions Judge, in concurrence with the assessors who sat with him, has selected the story told by the four witnesses for the prosecution before the Magistrate, and has rejected the one that was told before him. He arrived at this result partly in this way: When the witnesses, one after another, told the story sworn to in his own Court, he allowed the advocate for the prosecution to cross-examine these, his own witnesses, apparently on the ground that they were hostile (of which we can see no trace), and so brought out by reference to their depositions given before the Magistrate: the story which had been given in the Magistrate's Court.2. It appears to us that there was no sufficient ground for allowing such cross-examination. We can see nothing on the...
Kashisauri Debi Vs. Grish Chandra and Brojo Sundari Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal145
Mitter, J.1. The only point which we think it necessary to notice is that raised in the third ground of the petition of appeal, viz., 'that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover anything beyond the amount for which she purchased the claim.'2. The plaintiff is the transferee of a debt due to one Brojo Sundari Debi from the appellant before us. The claim is to recover Rs. 650, made up of Rs. 540 principal and Rs. 110 interest. This actionable claim was admittedly purchased by the plaintiff for Rs. 344; and it is contended before us for the first time in second appeal that, under Section 135 of the Transfer, of Property Act, which applies to the transaction under which the plaintiff became entitled to this actionable claim, the plaintiff is only entitled to recover the price which she paid, and the incidental expenses of the sale, although the third ground does not admit that she is entitled to those expenses.3. We are of opinion that this contention is not valid. Section 135 does not ...
Bandikaratan Tewari Chowdhry Vs. Ram Kishore Gangopadhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-15-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal203
Mitter, J.1. The question of limitation must depend upon the question as to which article of the Limitation Act is applicable to the present case. Having regard to the facts found by the lower Appellate Court, it is clear that Articles 1371 and 1382 are not applicable, because at the time of Shibdoyal's auction purchase, the judgment-debtor was in possession, and Article 138 is not applicable, because upon the finding of the lower Appellate Court, the purchaser, Shibdoyal, obtained possession through the lessee who was in possession at that time. Articles 1393, 1404, 141 and 143 have evidently nothing to do with the present case. Therefore, either Article 142 or 144 must be applicable.2. If Article 142 were applicable, the plaintiffs' suit would of course be barred, because the date of 'dispossession or discontinuance of possession must, under any circumstances, have been in the year 1278 or 1871, and the suit having been, brought in 1884 it would have been barred. But it appears to us...
Dharma Das Ghose Vs. Nusseruddin
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal660
ORDERWilson and Porter, JJ.1. The question raised in this rule is, whether on the facts found the offence of mischief was committed. [Here followed the facts and the intention with which the act was done, as found by the Deputy Magistrate.]2. The offence of mischief is defined in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code: 'Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief.' The first explanation to that section is that 'it is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed.' 'It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property whether it bel...
Visranjee Visenjee and ors. Vs. Moorajee Poonja
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1886
Reported in: (1885)ILR12Cal658
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. Held that as no formal notice of abandonment of the appeal had been given, and that as at any time the Registrar might be called upon to issue the notice upon the opposite party, the application was a proper one; and therefore ordered the petition of appeal to be struck off the file for want of prosecution, allowing costs to the applicant....
Bhobo Pershad Khan Chowdhuri (Minor) by His Mother Ram Sukhi Dabia and ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal101
Mitter, J.1. The plaintiff seeks to recover possession of an 8-anna share of two mouzahs, alleging that the said share appertains to his zamindari No. 6100, and that the defendant, who is the owner of the other 8 annas, is in wrongful possession of the whole. He further alleges that his zamindari was let out in ijara; that the ijara lease terminated in the year 1285; and that on the termination of that lease he was dispossessed from the disputed land in the beginning of 1286.2. The defendant denied the plaintiff's allegation that he was dispossessed in 1286, and alleged that these two mouzahs constituted the holding of one Goluck in the defendant's zamindari, and that in execution of a rent decree this tenure was sold and purchased by him, the defendant, in the year 1276. He therefore contended that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation, and that he was entitle to retain possession of the sixteen annas of the lands of these two mouzahs.3. The lower Courts decreed the plaintiff'...
Abirunnissa Khatoon Vs. Komurunnissa Khatoon and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-13-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal100
Mitter, J.1. We are of opinion that there is no appeal in this case. All orders made under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not appealable by the second Clause of Section 588, but only orders striking out or adding the name of any person as plaintiff or defendant. As the order against which this appeal has been preferred doses not come within the purview of this clause, we think there is no appeal. The appeal is rejected with costs....
Prannath Shaha and anr. Vs. Madhu Kulu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-08-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal96
Mitter, J.1. This was a suit brought by the plaintiffs to recover possession of a piece of land which it is alleged was held by the defendants as their tenants.2. The plaintiffs alleged that they called upon the defendants to come to a settlement with them in respect of the said land, and they say, as the defendants have refused to do so, they are entitled to evict them and get khas possession. They also alleged that they served the defendants with a notice to quit.3. The Courts below have dismissed the plaintiffs' suit upon the ground that no notice to quit is proved to have been served upon the defendants.4. It is contended before us that the Courts below were not right in dismissing the suit upon that ground, because the defendants in this case alleged that they were not the tenants of the plaintiffs; and if it were found that they were not, no notice to quit would have been necessary.5. We are of opinion that this contention is not valid. If it should be found that the defendants w...
Doma Sahu Vs. Nathai Khan and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-05-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal50
Norris and Beverley, JJ.1. Another objection was raised before the Subordinate Judge, which is this: Section 8, Regulation XVII of 1806, says that the perwana which the Judge is to send with a copy of the petition shall be 'under his seal and official signature.' The Subordinate Judge has found, and his finding of fact is not questioned, that the notice, a copy of which was served upon the defendant Harihar Pershad, does not bear the official signature of the District Judge. It bears the seal of the Judge and the signature of the sheristadar of his Court. And upon the authority of a case of Basdeo Singh v. Mata Din I.L.R. 4 All. 276 the Subordinate Judge has held that that is not a valid notice. We are of opinion that this view of the Subordinate Judge is right. We quite agree that the Allahabad decision does not go to the full extent to which the Subordinate Judge goes; and that the two cases differ in this respect--that in the Allahabad case there was only the official seal of the Co...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »