Kolkata Court March 1887 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.
Ram Culpo Bhattacharji Vs. Ram Chunder Shome and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-11-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal352
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. We think that this appeal must be allowed. The question is whether a particular decree is barred by limitation. The decree is a decree for the recovery of a certain sum of money by instalments, and it contains a proviso that, in the event of default in the payment of any of the instalments, the whole sum shall become due, It is found, as a fact, that default was made in the payment of one instalment, and therefore the creditor might, if he had thought fit, have issued execution for the whole amount due under the decree, and that at a period which is so long ago that, if he was obliged to do it, his remedy is now barred by limitation; and consequently the only question is whether, when default is made under such circumstances, the judgment-creditor is bound, at his peril, to put his decree into force for the whole amount, and whether, if he does not, the Statute runs against him.2. A good deal has been said about the wording of the decree, but we do not think i...
Moheswari Pershad NaraIn Singh and anr. Vs. Baij Nath Pershad NaraIn S ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-08-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal451
1. This was a suit brought upon a mortgage made in the old form by conditional sale. The time for paying the mortgage money expired, and the notice prescribed by Section 8 of Regulation XVII of 1806 was issued and served. The consequence was that the mortgagor's interest in the property became liable to be barred, and the mortgagees' title was in process of becoming absolute if the money was not paid within the year of grace prescribed by the Statute. Before the year of grace had expired, the period for payment was enlarged by agreement between the parties, and several further extensions of time took place. Ultimately the final extension expired while the Regulation was in full force, and before the passing, of the Transfer of Property Article. This suit was then brought by the mortgage claiming to have his title declared to have accrued to him absolutely by reason of default in payment within the time to which the period of grace had been extended, and asking for a decree such as he w...
Pat Dasi Vs. Sharup Chand Mala and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal376
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a suit which is brought by a person to have it declared that the auction sale of his property made in execution of a decree is invalid, and that his possession of it is valid as against the auction-purchaser.2. The facts of the case are that the decree was obtained against this plaintiff by one of the defendants for a certain sum of money; that after it had been obtained the present plaintiff satisfied the decree by payment, but he did not have the payment certified under the provisions of Section 258 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and that, notwithstanding such payment, the execution-creditor went on and put up the property for sale, and it was purchased by the other defendants in this suit. Under these circumstances the owner of the property, the person who paid the money and who now finds that his property has been sold behind his back, brings this suit for the purpose of having it declared that the sale is of no effect as against him ; and the onl...
Beni Madhab Mitter Vs. Khatir Mondul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal449
Mitter abd Beverley, JJ.1. We think that the judgments of the lower Courts in this case are correct. under Section 60 the certificate is adducible in evidence to prove that the document was duly registered by the particular officer whose signature it bears, but it has been shown that that officer had no jurisdiction to register it. That being so the document was not duly registered within the provisions of the Registration Act. A decision was referred to in the course of the argument, Ram Coomar Sen v. Khoda Newaz 7 C.L.R. 223, but we find that that decision is entirely based upon a Privy Council judgment Mukhun Loll Pandey v. Koondun Lall 5 B.L.R. 228 and the Privy Council decision does not support the contention put forward in this case. There the document which was in question was registered by an officer who had jurisdiction to register it, but in this case the document has been registered by an officer who had no jurisdiction to register it. That being so, the observations of thei...
Kally Doss Seal Vs. NobIn Chunder Doss
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-07-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal518
ORDERTrevelyan, J.1. In this case I have to consider whether a good title can be made to a certain house which has been sold in pursuance of a mortgage decree.2. The matter was in accordance with the rules of the Court referred in the first instance to the Registrar, who has reported that a good title cannot be made out to the property.3. Counsel on both sides have cited oases to me as to what sort of title the Court can force on an unwilling purchaser.4. The result of recent cases on this subject is laid down with precision in the last edition of Fry on Specific Performance, p. 388. On examining the title I will refer afterwards to what is there laid down. The abstract of title started with the mortgage, which recited that the mortgagor was possessed of, or otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to, the house and premises.5. On investigation the purchaser discovered a deed of the 11th of March 1858, made between the mortgagor and his, brother Earn Chunder Doss and referring to this ...
Cumar Ganoda Kant Roy Bahadur and Two ors. Vs. Subodini Debi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-02-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal400
1. It appears that this suit which was one for rent was originally brought in the name of Mr. Stevens as the authorized manager of Bajah Ganoda Kant Boy Bahadur and others. At a later stage in the suit an amendment was made by striking out Mr. Stevens and substituting his employers as plaintiffs in the case. We must presume that to have been done on sufficient materials under the express provisions of Section 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which section, if a suit is brought in the name of the wrong person as plaintiff, the name of the right person may be substituted, provided the conditions of the section are complied with. It is said, however, that that change was made at such a time that, if the suit had been then brought for the first time in the names of the proper persons, it would have been barred by limitation, and the suggestion is that therefore this suit is barred. The answer to that is that this suit is the original suit and was brought in time; tee change of part...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›