Kolkata Court May 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.
Anunda Chunder Bhuttacharji and ors. Vs. Fakir Chand Audhikari and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-17-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal586
1. The plaintiffs in this case are the maternal grandsons of one Gobindram Audhikari; their father was Abhoy Chunder Bhuttacharji, who married Tarani Debya, Gobindram's daughter.2. Gobindram had also two sons, viz., Shafalram, the elder, and Shagur Churn, the younger; these two brothers were separate.3. Shagur Churn died first, leaving his widow Kumari Debya and two daughters, Shama Sundari and Durgamoni Debya. Durgamoni died childless, and Kumari Debya died in 1272. Shama Sundari died in 1280; she had two sons, viz., Fakir Chand, defendant No. 1, and Romanath, the father of defendants 2 to 7.4. Shafalram died leaving no son, daughter or wife, and Abhoy Churn, the father of the plaintiffs, was his heir.5. The common ancestor, Gobindram, was in possession of 100 bighas 14 chittaks of rent-free land in Shebaiti right. Of this 50 bighas 7 cottahs was the share of Shafalram and 50 bighas 7 cottahs the share of Shagur Churn. The two brothers collected the rents of their respective shares an...
Gungadhur Pershad NaraIn Singh Vs. Mohabir Pershad NaraIn Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-10-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal599
1. The defendant In this case borrowed Rs. 299 from the plaintiff, and as security for the repayment of the loan executed on the 6th April 1881 a deed of conditional sale covenanting to repay the mortgage debt on the 13th May 1881. The money was not repaid on that date, and a notice in compliance with the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of Regulation XVII of 1806 was served upon the mortgagor by the mortgagee on the 9th of July 1881, so that the year of grace from the date of that notice would expire on the 10th of July 1882.2. This suit was instituted on the 24th January 1885. The plaintiff asked for a declaration that the defendant's right to redeem the mortgaged premises should be foreclosed. Various defences were pleaded by the defendant, all of which have been disposed of adversely to him by the lower Courts. Mr. Gregory in special appeal has urged only one point before us, and that is a point of not inconsiderable importance. It was urged before the lower appellate Court, and was ...
Khajah Assenoollajoo Vs. Solomon and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-09-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal533
ORDERTrevelyan, J.1. In this application the defendant seeks to compel the plaintiff to give security for the costs of this suit.2. The first ground is that he does not reside in British India.3. Although he is a native of Cashmere, he seems to have been for some time resident in British India, and it does not appear that he has been out of British India for a long time. This ground, I think, clearly fails.4. The other ground is that he has disposed of a portion of his interest in the suit, that he is a pauper, and that the suit is a speculative one brought at the instance of and for the benefit of others.5. There are a good many matters alleged which go to the merits of the suit, and to which I need not refer in dealing with this application.6. In the 43rd paragraph of his affidavit Mahomed Ghouse states that in the year 1882 the plaintiff entered into an agreement with one Abdoor Rohim and others for the purpose of obtaining from them advances from time to time in order to carry on a...
Lalmoni Dasi Vs. Bolye Chunder Sen
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal796
Wilson, J.1. In this case the plaintiff, as owner of the house No. 8/1, Gopikishen Pal's Lane, sued the defendant, the owner of adjoining premises, in respect of infringements, actual and threatened, of her alleged right to the free access of light and air, by the erection of a wall. The plaintiff claimed damages and an injunction. Of the written statement it is enough to say that, amongst other things, it denied the right of the plaintiff to the light and air claimed. The plaintiff's house and the defendant's were formerly one property, forming a family dwelling-house, No. 8, Gopikishen Pal's Lane. In 1871 the defendant's predecessor in title, who was entitled to a three-fourths share of the property, sued the plaintiff's predecessor in title (he is also her husband), the owner of the other one-fourth, in this Court for partition. On the 14th March 1871, a decree was made by which the shares were declared, partition was ordered, and a commission issued, with the other directions usual...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›