Kolkata Court October 1887 Judgments
Rakhal Chunder Roy and anr. Vs. Modhusuddun Koer and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-31-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal104
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. We think that this appeal must be dismissed.2. The question which is raised before us is whether the Munsif has jurisdiction to try the suit which is brought to test the question, whether a property which has been attached in execution is liable to pay the claim of the creditor, the value of the property being over one thousand rupees, but the amount of the debt being less than one thousand rupees.3. The question has never been actually before this Court so far as appears from the books, but it has been before the Courts of Bombay, Madras, and Allahabad, and these Courts have decided that the amount which is to settle the jurisdiction is the amount of the debt and not the value of the property. We think that, even if we had any doubt upon the point, it would be right to follow those decisions, as they all appear to be uniform; but beyond that, and speaking for myself, I agree entirely with those decisions. The amount which is to settle the jurisdiction of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Mujidan Vs. Satghuri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-31-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal107
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. We think that no appeal lies in this case, and that the question is really concluded by the authority of the case of Hurrosundari Debi v. Bhojohari Das Manji 13 C. 86.2. The suit is a rent suit which was brought by the landlord against his tenant to recover a sum of rent. During the time that such suits were governed by Bengal Act VIII of 1869, no second appeal lay to this Court by reason of there being a question involved in the suit as to the amount of the rent. After the suit was commenced, and before the decree, Act VIII of 1885 was passed. That act, amongst other things, repeals Bengal Act VIII of 1869, and provides that in cases of this kind, where this peculiar kind of dispute arises, an appeal shall lie. It may be that at first sight it would look as if that was intended to relate to all suits that were then pending; but when one comes to look at Section 6 of the General Clauses Act of 1868, it will be seen that it provides that the repeal of any Statu...
Tag this Judgment!Ahmed Mahomed Mahomed Jackariah and Co. Vs. Ahmed Mahomed
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Oct-13-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal109
Norris, J.1. On the 20th August, Hadjee Jackariah Mahomed & Co., through Mr. Hume, their attorney, applied to the Presidency Magistrate of the Northern Division of Calcutta for warrants for the arrest of Ahmed Mahomed and Topun Ramchore on charges of cheating and abetment thereof.2. In support of the application, Noor Mahomed, a member of the prosecutor's firm, was examined on solemn affirmation. His deposition was as follows:I am a member of Hadjee Jackariah and Co. I have been a member of that firm since 1874. I know the first defendant Ahmed Mahomed. He is a boat owner. He has had business with us since 1879. He kept a floating account with us. The first defendant's ledger was kept by Topun Ramchore in my office. He used to make entries in the cash-book occasionally. When defendant No. 1 came to my office for money I used to ask defendant No. 2 to look at the ledger and say whether No. 1 had a credit balance. No. 2 always said he had credit balance. Day before yesterday No. 1 came t...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›