Kolkata Court July 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.
Uman Parshad Vs. Gandharp Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-06-1887
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal20
Hobhouse, J.1. In this case only one question was argued, and that was whether the two transfers executed by Gulab in the years 1863 and 1864 to Bissesur, the husband of her only daughter, were real transfers, or benami. That question turned out to be a complicated one, and it was necessary to go into a good deal of evidence of a varied and rather voluminous nature. The plaintiff maintains that the substance of the transaction is the same as the form of it, and that the property, consisting of four villages, conveyed to him by deeds, duly attested, registered immediately afterwards and subsequently proved and filed in a suit, was actually sold to him. As to the deeds there was no doubt. The only question is whether Bissesur, the grantee, was a benamidar.2. It is familiar to us all that the system of putting property benami is so extremely common in India that the mere fact of a deed being executed in proper form, and apparently effecting a valid transfer to another, is not as good evid...
Ram Pershad, Minor, Represented by His Uncle and Guardian Ad Litem Dun ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal768
Norms, J.1. On 21st May, upon the application of Mr. Woodroffe, we granted a rule calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why the order of 13th May should not be see aside. The rule was argued on 17th ultimo, Mr. Evans showing cause and Mr. Advocate-General supporting it.2. Any difficulty that exists in disposing of this rule arises from the fact that neither the Subordinate Judge nor the pleaders of the respective parties seem to have understood the procedure regarding inspection.3. Chapter X of the Civil Procedure Code contains the provisions with regard to 'discovery, and the admission, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents.'4. Section 121 of the Civil Procedure Code authorizes a plaintiff, at any time by leave of the Court, to deliver through the Court interrogatories in writing for the examination of the defendant, and authorizes a defendant, at any time after his written statement has been tendered, received, and placed on the record, to deliver through the ...
Ram Lal Roy Vs. Digambur Misser and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-02-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal761
Tottenham and Norris, JJ.1. On second appeal the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 urged that the parties to the suit being all Hindus the Court below ought to have held that the present suit to enforce the right of pre-emption is not maintainable. As to this it is sufficient to say that the point was not raised in either of the lower Courts, and is not such an one as we can allow to be raised now for the first time.2. Another point urged by the Counsel for the appellants was that, as there had been no actual partition of the disputed properties by metes and bounds, the lower appellate Court ought not to have held that there was such a separation as to entitle the plaintiff to maintain the suit. In support of this contention two cases were relied upon, viz., Farzand Ali v. Alimullah 1 A. 272; and Lalla Nowbut Khan v. Lalla Jewan Lall 4 C. 831. In the first case the facts were these: The plaintiff brought his suit for a declaration of right to, and to obtain possession of, a certain share in a pu...
Probode Chunder Mullick and ors. Vs. M. Dowey
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jul-01-1887
Reported in: (1887)ILR14Cal695
Macpheeson, J.1. This is an application under Section 477 of the Civil Procedure Code to take security for the defendant's appearance to answer any decree that may be passed against him in the suit. The plaintiffs are the proprietors of the Hooghly Dock, and the defendant is the master of the ' Roanoke,' described as a barque of 400 tons. The claim amounting to Rs. 9,728 is principally for work done to the vessel while in the plaintiffs' dock, but it includes a charge of Rs. 2,250 for dock hire.2. The defendant has no domicile in this country; he came to Calcutta in charge of the vessel, and there is no answer to the allegation that he intends to leave as soon as he possibly can, his vessel being under charter for Natal, and that there is no certainty as to whether he will ever return. There is clearly, therefore, reasonable probability that the plaintiffs will be obstructed or delayed in the execution of any decree that may be obtained. The defendant shows cause against the rule which...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›