Kolkata Court January 1888 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.
Ramgolam Roy Vs. Rajrup Singh and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-30-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal1
Wilson, J.1. The plaintiffs are the assignees of a decree obtained against one Kheba Singh and in this suit they ask for a declaration that certain properties are liable to be attached and sold to satisfy that decree in the hands of the substantial defendants to the suit, who are the sons of Kheba Singh. It appears that after the decree was obtained Kheba Singh died, and that an application was made to execute the decree against the property now in question in the hands of the same persons who are now defendants; and that application was dismissed. Neither the petition nor the order has been put in evidence, and we are therefore obliged to derive our knowledge of them from the admissions in the plaint, from which we learn that the decree-holders 'filed a list of the disputed property as property belonging to the judgment-debtor Kheba Singh;' that the sons alleged in answer that 'they had got it from the estate of Mewa Lal and not from the estate of Kheba;' and that by the order then ma...
Bhikumber Singh Vs. Becharam Sircar and Goti Kristo Das
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-27-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal264
Norris, J.1. These are appeals from the decisions of Mr. Porter, the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur.2. The plaintiff brought two separate suits against the two defendants to recover damages for slander. His cause of action he alleged to be this, that the defendants being summoned as witnesses on behalf of a Police Sub-Inspector, who was being prosecuted for extortion, used, in the course of giving their evidence, one of them, that is, the defendant in No. 702, the words: 'Of all the persons living within the police jurisdiction of this district the Tekait's (meaning the plaintiff's) character is the worst,' and the other, the defendant in No. 703, the words: 'The Tekait received stolen property and committed murder.' The plaintiff alleged that these statements were made in the Police Court of zillah Manbhoom on the 14th September 1885. He alleged that they were made maliciously; that the defendants bore the plaintiff a grudge; and it was to give vent to that grudge and to injure...
Maya Ram Surma Vs. Nichala Katani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal402
1. This is a reference by the Deputy Commissioner of Sibsagur under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, questioning the legality of the conviction of one Niohala Katani and three others by Mr. Melitus, Assistant Commissioner of Sibsagur, under Sections 379 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The accused in this case were charged with the offence of theft said to have been committed in respect of fish in a tank belonging to the complainant, and also with the offence of criminal trespass.3. The Assistant Commissioner in the first instance, i.e., on the 1st August last, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the Procedure Code with the following observations:4. Complainant did not cultivate the fish; they entered the tank in flood time. Therefore according to a High Court ruling (in the Meherpore case (1)), they are ferw natures and no man's property, and no offence (such as theft or trespass) has been committed. The circumstances of the tank and of the Chucka Khola Bheel (w...
Roop Lall Das and anr. and Mohinee Mohun Roy and anr. Vs. Bekani Meah
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-24-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal437
1. These are appeals from an order of the First Subordinate Judge of Dacca under Section 280 of the Code of Civil Procedure, releasing from attachment certain property of the judgment-debtor on the ground that the property in question was wakf property, and that the judgment-debtor was merely in possession of it as a trustee.2. A preliminary objection has been raised that no appeal lies from an order under Section 280 of the Code, and that the decree-holders' proper course, if dissatisfied with that order, was to institute a regular suit in accordance with the provisions of Section 283.3. On the other band it is contended for the decree-holder that this was an order between the parties to the suit relating to the execution of the decree, and was therefore an order under Section 244 of the Code; that under the definition of 'decree' in Section 3 of the Code the order in question was a 'decree' from which an appeal lies under Section 540; and that under Section 244 no separate suit will ...
Sorolah Dossee and Unnopoornah Dossee Vs. Bhoobun Mohun Neoghy and ors ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-23-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal292
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The facts out of which the controversy in this case arises are these-Rajender Chunder Neoghy died intestate on the 10th September, 1868, leaving three sons, Ram Chunder, Bhoobun Mobun and Hurry Doss, and a widow Rakbal Money, the mother of the three sons. Ram Chunder died immediately after his father, leaving a widow Unnopoornah as his heir. Unnopoornah sued for partition, and the property which had been that of Rajender Chunder was divided into four parts, of which one was allotted to Unnopoornah, one each to Bhoobun Mohun and Hurry Doss, and one to their mother Rakbal Money. Rakhal Money died on the 18th February, 1884, leaving her two sons Bhoobun Mohun and Hurry Doss and her daughter-in-law Unnopoornah surviving. Hurry Doss had since died leaving his widow Sorolah his heiress. Two suits were thereupon brought, the details of which it is not necessary to examine, and were beard together before Trevelyan, J. The question for decision is shortly stated by the...
In Re: Act Xv of 1859 Andc. and D.H.R. Moses
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal244
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a proceeding under Section 24 of Act XV of 1859 for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that no exclusive privilege to manufacture sugarcane mills according to a specification has been obtained under a patent dated 10th February 1874. The rule for the purpose of this application was obtained in the month of May last, and was returnable within twelve days from date of issue, but from that time the matter has, for various reasons, stood over until the present time.2. The patent in respect of which this enquiry comes before us is, as I said just now, dated the 10th February 1874, and consequently it will expire on the 10th February 1889, that is to say, in about three weeks from this date, so that, in case there is no application for the renewal of this patent, the specification under enquiry will come to an end in three weeks, and the whole of this enquiry and the whole of the time and money which has been spent upon it will have been useless, unless ...
Sankarmani Debya and ors. Vs. Mathura Dhupini
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-20-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal327
1. We are of opinion that the 'Judicial Officer as aforesaid' mentioned in the proviso to Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act has reference to the 'Judicial Officer' spoken of in Clause (b) of the section and to such an officer only. It follows that the District Judge possesses no revisional jurisdiction by virtue of that proviso in respect of the decrees and orders of a District Judge, Additional Judge or Subordinate Judge referred to in clause (a) of the section....
Soobul Chunder Vs. Russick Lall Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-17-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal202
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. (Wilson and Tottenham, JJ. concurring).--This appeal arises out of an application to stay proceedings in the execution of a decree of this Court, made by the plaintiff in the present suit, which is a suit to administer the estate of Prosunno Coomar Surbadhicarry, deceased, who was the person against whom the decree, which is now sought to be executed, was obtained, and whose property has been attached under it. The facts are as follows : On the 4th June 1886, the present respondent, Russick Lall Mitter, sued Prosunno Coomar Surbadhicarry, on the Original Side of this Court, to recover a sum of money, and on the 22nd July 18.86 obtained a final decree against him. On the 5th November 1886 Prosunno Coomar Surbadhicarry died, and on the 18th December 1886 the respondent applied to attach property under his decree. On the 21st December 1886 the plaint of Soobul Chunder Law, the present appellant, was filed, praying that accounts might be taken and the estate of Pr...
Lalraddi Mullick Vs. Kala Chand Bera
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-16-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal363
1. It is a matter of regret that in this case no one appears for the respondent. The point to be decided is of some little importance, and perhaps of some little difficulty. The facts are these: The decree-holder, the appellant before us, obtained a decree on the 7th of November 1881. On the 22nd May 1882, he applied to execute that decree. A certain property of the judgment-debtor's was attached and put up for sale. While-the property was under attachment a claim was laid to it by a third party. That claim in due course came on for investigation before the Court, and on the 10th of August 1882, it was allowed. At the time the claim was allowed the judgment-creditor through his pleader admitted the validity of the claim, and applied that the property under attachment might be sold subject to the mortgage, and that the proceeds realized, if any, ultra the mortgage debt, might be paid over to him in part satisfaction of his decree. That was on the 10th of August 1882. A small sum of mone...
Rash Behari Bose Vs. Purna Chunder Mozumdar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-13-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal350
Beverley, J.1. The facts of this case are somewhat complex.2. The plaintiff sues to eject the defendant No. 4 from a certain jumma within a certain mehal. The defendant No. 4 purchased this jumma from the defendant No. 3, who had been holding it for some time as a tenant under the defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the proprietors of the mehal. The defendants Nos. 1 and 2 having defaulted, the mehal was brought to sale for arrears of revenue and purchased by one Prosunno Coomar Dutt, whose rights were transferred to the defendant No. 6, from whom the plaintiff has obtained a talukdari pottah; and it is on the strength of this pottah granted by the auction-purchaser that the plaintiff, under the provision of Section 37 of Act XI of 1859, sues to eject the defendant No. 4.3. It has been found as a fact by both the lower Courts that the plaintiff is merely a benamidar for the defendant No. 1; that is to say, that the talukdari pottah under which he claims was granted by the auction-purchaser to one...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »