Kolkata Court March 1887 Judgments
NobIn Chunder Bannerjee Vs. Romesh Chunder Ghose and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-31-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal781
Wilson, J.1. The plaintiff in this case purchased the property to which the suit relates on the 2nd July 1883, the property being then subject to two mortgages, one an equitable mortgage for Rs. 100 without interest, the other a legal mortgage for Rs. 200 with interest at 18 per cent. The plaintiff brought this suit to redeem the mortgages and recover possession of the property. He paid into Court Rs. 600 as sufficient to cover all that could be due upon the mortgages to the defendants or any of them. He alleged that the defendants or some of them had wrongfully obtained and held possession from a time long before his own purchase, and for this he claimed mesne profits.2. The case was heard before Cunningham, J., who made his decree, dated the 23rd February 1885, by which he ordered certain accounts to be taken--(a) 'an account of what is due to the defendants for principal on the equitable and legal mortgages...and for interest only on the legal mortgage at the rate of 18 per cent. pe...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Chandu Gowala and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal355
ORDER1. We do not think that what happened took away the jurisdiction of the Second Class Magistrate to commit the case to the Sessions, and as his proceedings were not illegal we decline to interfere the Sessions-Judge must proceed to try and dispose of the case....
Tag this Judgment!Manija Khanum Alias Bakka Khanum Vs. Khaja Mahomed Asghur
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-21-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal420
Tottenham and O'Klnealy, JJ.1. It is clear to us upon the facts of the case that the plaintiff would be entitled to receive some dower, and probably not less than Rs. 5,000, if she had framed her suit in such a way that the Court could give it to her; but we find ourselves, be our regret, unable to sustain the decree of the lower Court. The suit was brought upon a written contract and upon nothing else. That written contract was not produced, and in the opinion of the lower Court the evidence admitted was not sufficient to establish its execution, and as to that finding we see no reason to differ from the Court below. In the first place it is very difficult to say whether the plaintiff made out any case for the admission of secondary evidence. We are not convinced that there ever was any valid written document in existence, and we are certainly not convinced that, if there was, it was in the possession of her father or her brother the Nawab Ashanoollah. That being so we think that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Queen-empress Vs. Sricharan Bauri
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-19-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal357
ORDER1. We must decline to interfere. The accused has been convicted of an attempt, and the conviction therefore does not fall strictly within the terms of Section 75 of the Indian Penal Code....
Tag this Judgment!Lutchmiput Singh Bahadur and on His Death His Son Chutterput Singh Doo ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-18-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal464
1. It was strongly urged upon us by the learned Vakil, who appeared for Lutchmiput Singh, the appellant before us, that; the suit of the Land Mortgage Bank having been dismissed, we should hold that the plaintiff Lutchmiput Singh was entitled to an unconditional decree in this suit, and it was contended that the Land Mortgage Bank having already exhausted their cause of action in the suit brought by them in 1872, no fresh suit would lie to enforce the mortgage lien against any portion of the properties belonging to Sadurrunessa in accordance with the principle laid . down in the case of Kendall v. Hamilton L.R. 4 App. Ca. 504 ; and that, therefore, the share of Sadurrunnessa must now be taken to be free of the mortgage lien, and that as a result of this, no portion of the debt still due to the Bank could properly be charged against the said share.2. It was further contended that the lien which existed upon Sadurrunnessa's share vanished when the properties were sold ; that the decree o...
Tag this Judgment!Atul Kristo Bose Vs. Lyon and Co.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-17-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal457
Wilson and O'kinealy, JJ.1. The facts found by the learned Judge of the Small Cause Court are not, we think, sufficient to enable us to say from what date the period of limitation should be reckoned. What is found is that, on the 15th November 1882, the plaintiff paid the price of a consignment of goods which he had ordered from the defendants, and that on the 22nd November the case, purporting to contain the goods ordered, was opened and certain of the goods found to be missing. And we are asked whether limitation in respect of a suit to recover back the sum overpaid is to be reckoned from the 15th or the 22nd November. We can only say, assuming, as is probably correct, that article 62 applies to such a case, not necessarily from either. The money paid by the plaintiff was not, at the time he parted with it, received by the defendants for his use but for their own. It was when the consideration failed that, by operation of law, the money became money received to his use, and that, we ...
Tag this Judgment!Reid, Manager of the Suddowah Factory Vs. Richardson Manager of the Ra ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal361
ORDERCunningham, J.1. We have considered this case at great length, and, departing from the ordinary rule which the Court prescribes to itself in cases of revision, we have thought it desirable to go into the whole of the evidence in the case with the view of putting ourselves in full possession of all the facts appearing upon it, and we have also kept in mind the circumstance, which is constantly brought before us in these cases, that, as between the two parties to the present dispute, Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is being used for a purpose wholly alien to that for which it was originally intended, and one calculated to produce, in whosesoever favour it is made, very unexpected and unfair results--in fact, that a squabble about some grass is to be turned into an important judicial decision as to the boundary of two large estates. That is a state of things which we regard with great disapproval and which it is the object of this Court to discourage as far, as possible...
Tag this Judgment!Hokum Chand Aswal Vs. Gyanender Chunder Lahiri, Minor, by His Guardian ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-16-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal570
1. This is an application to execute a decree under a certificate granted by a Civil Court in Cooch Behar with reference to a decree for arrears of rent. Section 434 of the Procedure Code is the section which gives the Courts in British India authority to execute such decrees. That section says: 'The Governor-General in Council may, from time to time, by notification in the Gazette of India, declare that the decrees of any Courts situate in the territories of any Native Prince or State in alliance with Her Majesty, and not established by the authority of the Governor-General in Council, may be executed in British India as if they had been made by the Courts of British India.' Therefore the decree must be executed as if it had been made by a Court in British India. The law of limitation which would be applicable to such execution proceedings would be the law which would be applicable to the decree if it had been passed in a Court in British India. The decree having been passed in a suit...
Tag this Judgment!Nistarini Dasi Vs. Dharmodas Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal446
Mitter and Beverley, JJ.1. Upon this state of things it is contended before us that delivery of possession not having been effected at all, the gift, according to Hindu law, is not valid. The District Judge, who has held that the gift is valid, has relied upon Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act in support of his conclusion.2. It is contended before us that Section 123 does not at all abrogate that part of the Hindu law which requires that possession must be delivered in order to complete a gift, and in support of this contention Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act is referred to. That section says: 'Nothing in this chapter relates to gifts of moveable property made in contemplation of death, or shall be deemed to affect any rule of Mahomedan law, or, save as provided by Section 123, any rule of Hindu or Buddhist law. 'Now this section no doubt leaves intact the Hindu law except so far as it is touched by the provisions of Section 123 referred to above. We think that th...
Tag this Judgment!In Re: Mulla Adjim
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal351
Cunningham, J.1. The first point which arises in this appeal is the question whether we have any right to hear it. We think we have not. The powers of appeal from the Court of the Recorder of Rangoon are of a special character, and are defined in Section 49 of Act XVII of 1875, which lays down certain money limits within which, and within which alone, an appeal lies be the High Court here. Then Section 28 of Act XL of 1858 provides that all orders passed under the Act shall be open to appeal under the rules in force for appeals in miscellaneous oases from the orders of such Courts. We might have felt some doubt as to the effect of these two provisions but for the provisions of Section 95 of the Burmah Courts Act, which expressly refers to Act XL of 1858, and in effect embodies it as one of the enactments of the Act itself.2. We think, therefore, that it is perfectly clear that the appeal given in Act XL of 1858 is subject to the ordinary law of appeal as laid down in the Burmah Courts ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »