Kolkata Court June 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.
Tarini Mohun Mozumdar Vs. Gunga Prosod Chuckerbutty Alias TIn Cowrie C ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal650
ORDERGhose, J.1. The facts of this case, so far as they are necessary to be mentioned for the purposes of the rule before us, are these: There is a certain property which is occupied by a number of ryots. The plaintiff alleges that he was in constructive possession of this property by receipt of rent from the ryots, but that, on a certain day, the defendant induced them to discontinue paying their rent to the plaintiff and to pay it instead to him, the defendant. The plaintiff, thereupon, brought the present action under Section 9 of the Specific Belief Act for the purpose of recovering possession of the said property from the defendant.2. The Munsif has held that this suit does not fall within the scope of Section 9 of that Act, and has accordingly dismissed it. That section runs thus: 'If any person is dispossessed without his consent of immoveable property otherwise than in due course of law, he or any person claiming through him may, by suit instituted within six months from the da...
Hanuman Kamut Vs. Hanuman Mandur and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-14-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal51
Wilson, J.1. The case in which this appeal has been brought arises in this way: The present plaintiff bought, or purported to buy, certain property from a person who was a father in a Mitakshara family. The plaintiff afterwards brought a suit, based upon that purchase and the title thence arising, to recover possession of the property. His claim was resisted and his suit was dismissed, on the ground that one member of a Mitakshara family cannot, under the law as administered in this province, alianate by voluntary sale even his own shara of the family property. He has now brought this suit against the heirs of the person from whom he purchased, and in it he seeks to recover back the purchase-money. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that it is barred by Section 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, inasmuch as it is said that under that section this claim might have been, and ought to have been, inserted as an alternative claim in the former suit. What the section says is that the ...
Madho Misser Vs. Sidh Binaik Upadhya Alias Bena Upadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal687
Tottenham and Norris, JJ.1. The only point which arises in this second appeal is whether or not Article 132, Schedule II of the Limitation Act, is applicable to the facts of this case.2. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the sum of Rs. 99 with interest.3. Both Courts have held that the plaintiff's claim is barred by limitation, the document upon which be sued being dated the 24th of July 1881, and the suit not being brought until the 3rd of August 1885.4. The document runs thus: 'I, the declarant, Sidh Binaik Upadhya alias Bena Upadhya, inhabitant of Kurnampur, pergunnah Behya, zillah Tirhoot, do execute this deed. Whereas I have borrowed Rs. 99 from Madho Misser, inhabitant of Kurnampur, pergunnah aforesaid, I shall pay interest at the rate of one rupee six annas per cent. per mensem without any objection. I shall pay the entire principal with interest in the month of Baisakh 1289 F.S. without any objection. If I do not pay the money according to the stipulation, then I...
Mitchell Reid and Co. Vs. Buldeo Doss Khettry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-13-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal1
Wilson, J.1. The facts found in this case are these: That on the 9th June 1886, a contract was entered into between the plaintiffs and the delendant, by which the defendant agreed to buy, or in form acknowledged that he had bought, from the plaintiffs the goods described as follows, namely, 'the goods or any part thereof that may be in a merchantable condition hereunder particularly specified, at the price stated below, viz., ex City of Cambridge' or other vessel or vessels,' with certain marks and then the numbers '1191/95, 5 bales chrome Orange twist No. 40, 5 lb, bundles horse tickets, each 500 lbs. at 0-9-9. per lb., 50 days G. delivery.' Then there are certain conditions below, the most important of which are these: The purchaser agreed to pay for the goods before or on delivery, deducting certain discount, or to grant promissory notes at the option of the sellers, and to take delivery within five days, which seams hardly consistent with what is stated above. There is a further cl...
Ram NaraIn Dut Vs. Annoda Prosad Joshi and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal682
1. This is an appeal against the Subordinate Judge of Burdwan reversing the decree of the Munsif in favour of the plaintiff and dismissing the suit on account of misjoinder of several causes of action. For the appellant it contended that the lower appellate Court was wrong in holding that the suit was liable to be dissmissed for such misjoinder.It was contended that there was no misjoinder, and it was contended that, if there was misjoinder, then insamuch as the first Court excercised its judicial discretion in not dismissing the such upon that ground, the Subordinate Judge in appeal ought not to have interfered. It seems that the first Corut was of opinion that there was misjoinder of diffirent causes of action in the suit. The Munsif was of opinion that a seprate suit should have been brought against each defandant; but he says, as the laws does not lay down that such a suit should be thrown out on account of such a defect, he passed it overIt appears to us that the Munsif was wuite ...
Sharup Chand Mala Sharup Chand Mala Vs. Pat Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal627
ORDERW. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is an application to admit to review a judgment passed in March last by my brother Cunningham and myself, and the ground for the application is that there is a manifest error in law on the face of the judgment, because it is absolutely in conflict with a judgment of the Privy Council delivered in the month of July of last year, and which appeared in the January number of the Law Reports of this year, and which consequently was in existence and known in this city when the case was argued and judgment given, but was not cited in the argument before us. Now I have not the slightest doubt that if there is an error in law on the face of a judgment, or if it is shown that the decision of the Court has proceeded upon a mistaken view of the law, that is a ground for review of judgment if it be necessary for the ends of justice that the judgment should be reviewed. These are the words used by Mr. Justice Norman in a case which was cited before us ; and if for...
Queen-empress Vs. Karim Buksh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-10-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal633
ORDERW. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. In this case we think there is no reason for the interference of the Court. This case has been referred to us by the Magistrate in order that this Court may revise the sentence of fine which has been passed on the accused on a conviction of having made a false charge before the Police, because the charge which he made was a charge of an offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code, the punishment for which may be seven years' rigorous imprisonment, and the Magistrate thinks that the sentence of fine was illegal, because by the latter portion of Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code, the punishment must be a punishment of imprisonment and there is no option to impose a fine only.2. The facts of the case here are, that the accused made a charge before the Police which he did not afterwards press before the Magistrate, and the only offence which he has committed has been that of making a false charge before the Police, and not of instituting any crimina...
Hamid Bakhut Mozumdar Vs. Buktear Chand Mahto and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal617
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a rule which has been obtained for the purpose of setting aside an order dismissing a claim to a certain property attached in execution of decree, and the rule has been obtained under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that in his proceedings in this matter the Judge has acted illegally in the exercise of his jurisdiction.2. The facts of the case are, that the judgment-debtor in this case and the claimant are brothers, and that the property in question was the property of their father who, something like 20 years ago, executed a document by which he devoted his estate to certain charitable and other purposes, and made his eldest son, the claimant in this suit, the mutwali of this endowment, and laid down certain rules.3. The judgment-creditor has, in these proceedings, attached the share of his debtor, which would have accrued to him, upon the death of his father, if this dead had not been executed and if the property had devolve...
Jugobundhu Pattuck Vs. Jadu Ghose Alkushi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-08-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal47
Ghose, J.1. This rule was issued under Section 622 of the Civil Procedure Code, upon the defendant, the opposite party before us, to show cause why a judgment passed by the District Judge of Nuddea, holding that the suit of the plaintiff, who is one of several co-sharers in a joint undivided Mehal, for the recovery of his share of the rent, cannot, by reason of Section 188 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, be maintained, should not be set aside.2. Both the Muns'if and the District Judge have, as we understand, held that, as a matter of fact, the plaintiff has, for some years back, been in the separate receipt and enjoyment of his share of the rent; but notwithstanding that finding the Judge holds, as I have just said, that the suit, which is for recovery of the plaintiff's share of the rent, does not lie by reason of Section 188 of the Tenancy Act.3. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned Counsel for the opposite party, upon the ground that, in the circumstances of this case, t...
Mudhoo Chunder Sircar Vs. Sundari Dassee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal592
Tottenham, J.1. This was a suit to recover possession of land, of which the plaintiff alleged himself to have been dispossessed by the defendant. The title he set up in his plaint was that this was lakhiraj lane which he had purchased from one Deno Bhundoo Poramanick. The defendant denied the plaintiif's title altogether.2. The lower appellate Court found that, although the plaintiff's lakhiraj title was not established, it was proved that he had purchased the land as lakhiraj from his alleged vendor; and the Subordinate Judge held that the possession of the plaintiff and of his vendor together extended to twelve years or more; and that that possession was adverse to the defendant. He was therefore of opinion that the plaintiff had established a title by adverse possession and was entitled to recover the land.3. On second appeal Baboo Guru Dass Banerjee, for the defendant-appellant before us, raised the question whether the plaintiff was entitled ho succeed upon a title of adverse poss...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »