Kolkata Court June 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.
Chunder Coomar Roy and ors. Vs. Gonesh Chunder Dass and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal283
Wilson and Beverley, JJ.1. This is an appeal arising out of the execution of a decree obtained by the appellants against Jugodumba and Pudmomoni, the daughters of Raj Chunder Dass and his widow Rash Money. It appears that, after forcelosure, Raj Chunder Dass instituted a suit for possession of certain mortgaged property. During the pendency of the suit he died, and his widow Eash Money was substituted as plaintiff and obtained a decree. In execution, she entered into possession of lands belonging to a third party, who thereupon brought a suit against her to recover those lands. She died while that suit was under trial, and a decree was obtained in this Court against her daughters Jugodumba and Pudmomoni, who, at her death, were the next heirs of Raj Chunder. A third daughter Sree Coomary, it may here be mentioned, predeceased Rash Money, and therefore did not succeed with her sisters. Jugodumba alone appealed to the Privy Council. Her appeal was dismissed. The appeal now before us rela...
Modun Mohun Dut and anr. Vs. Futtarunnissa and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1886
Reported in: (1886)ILR13Cal297
Mitter and Grant, JJ.1. This was a suit to recover possession of an 8-annas share of a certain property. We may take it upon the finding of the lower Courts that the defendants Nos. 6 and 7 had been the owners of this 8-annas share. It is not disputed that the plaintiffs purchased this property under a kobala from the defendants Nos. 6 and 7, and by the terms of that kobala the ownership was transferred to the plaintiffs. It is also not disputed that at the time of the execution of the kobala the defendants Nos. 6 and 7 were not in possession, but that the property in dispute was in the possession of the principal defendants. Upon these facts the question that was raised in the lower Courts, and that has been raised before us, is whether it was a sale of an actionable claim within the meaning of chapter 8 of the Transfer of Property Act; and farther if it is a sale of an actionable claim, whether Section 135 of that chapter, applies to the present case.2. It seems to us that the sale i...
Raghunath Pershad Vs. Abdul Hye and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal26
1. Article 179 of the Limitation Act of 1877 provides a period of three years' limitation for an application to execute a decree or order of any Civil Court, not provided for by Article 180, or by the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 230, to be computed from (a) the date of the decree or order; (b) (where there has been an appeal) the date of the final decree or order of the Appellate Court; and the question we have to decide in this case is, what construction is to be put upon the words, 'where there has been an appeal.' Are these words to be read in their widest sense, as including every case in which there has been an appeal against the whole or part of the decree of the lower Court; or are they to be read in a more limited sense, in cases like the present, where a portion of the decree is not appealed against? For the appellant it is contended that these words must be read strictly, and that where there has been an appeal, whether against the whole or part of the decree of the firs...
Mahomed Ebrahim and ors. Vs. Jogeshuri Chowdhrain
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-02-1886
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal33
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent for the year 1290 and for a portion of the year 1291, that is, up to the Pous kist of 1291; and also for ejectment.2. The Munsif awarded a decree in favour of the plaintiff for the arrears of rent proved to be due from the defendant for the period in suit, and also for ejectment, under the provisions of Section 52. On appeal it was contended that the plaintiff, having sued for the rent of a portion of the year 1291, was not entitled to a decree for ejectment. But the District Judge was of opinion that this argument was untenable. He says: 'It seems inequitable that the defendant should be thus protected, merely because the suit for arrears due on account of both years has been brought,' * * * * And then, further on, the Judge says : 'The Munsifs order will be so far modified that it will be specified in the decree what the amount of arrears decreed for 1290 are, plus the proportionate costs on those arrears, apart ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›