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.
Kashi Mohun Borua Vs. Bishnoo Pria
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-12-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal365
1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Officiating Judge of Chittagong. That decision affirms the decision of the Munsif of North Pattia.2. The facts of the case are these: The judgment-creditor, appellant,, obtained a decree in the Court of the Chittagong Hill Tracts on the 12th of June 1874. On the 15th of May 1876, he made ah application for execution of the decree, and asked for a certificate of non-satisfaction to be sent to the Court of the Munsif of North Pattia; and we take it that as a matter of fact on or about the 15th of May 1876, a certificate was in due course sent, and in due course reached the Court to which it was sent. After the receipt of the certificate in that Court, various applications for execution have, from time to time, been made by the decree-holder, but nothing has been realized under the decree. The last application was made on the 17th of September 1886; and on that occasion, and, as far as we know, for the first time, the objection was taken by th...
Manohur Koyal Vs. Thakur Das Naskar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-11-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal319
1. The facts of this case appear to be these: The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 1,473. How that sum is arrived at is stated at the top of page 3 of the paper-book.2. It appears that in Falgoon 1288 the defendant executed a bond for Rs. 801 in favour of the plaintiff. The money was to be repaid in Magh 1289. From the date of the bond up to the date fixed for repayment of the money interest was to be paid at eighteen per cent, per annum. If the money was not paid on the date it was covenanted to repay it, namely, Magh 1289, then interest upon the original sum and upon the interest up to Magh 1289 was to run at the rate of twenty-four per cent, per annum. The money was not repaid on the date fixed for its repayment, namely, Magh 1289. The defendant not being able to pay went to the plaintiff, and said in effect this to him: 'I am not able to pay you what is due to you under the bond; but I will pay you in cash Rs. 400, and I will execute a fresh kistibundi bond...
Ramjanee Bibee and ors. Vs. Amoo Beparee
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-09-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal317
1. We are of opinion that upon the facts found by him the Subordinate Judge was justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit.2. The suit was brought to recover possession of certain lands in which the plaintiffs alleged they had acquired a right of occupancy. The lower appellate Court has found that, although the plaintiffs had title to the land, still they have not actually cultivated it for twelve years, and have not paid rent for it since 1280, that is, for about eleven years. Prom these facts the Subordinate Judge drew the inference that the land had actually been abandoned by the plaintiffs, and that the landlord was justified in letting it again to another tenant. We are not prepared to say that this decision is erroneous.3. An objection has been taken that this suit was barred under the special provisions contained in Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, which provides a limitation of two years for a suit to recover possession of land by an occupancy ryot. We are o...
Ashanulla Vs. the Collector of Dacca and Rajandra NaraIn Roy, Bahadur ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal242
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. We think that; this preliminary objection must prevail. The objection is that the appeal has been filed too late. The decree was dated the 26th June 1886, and the appeal was filed on the 1st December of that year. The limitation provided for filing such appeals is 90 days, subject to the proviso in Section 5 of the Limitation Act. That proviso is: 'Any appeal or application for a review of judgment may be admitted after the period of limitation prescribed therefor when the appellant or applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal or making the application within such period.'2. The ground upon which the appellant seeks to satisfy the Court that he had sufficient cause for not presenting his appeal within the prescribed time is that he says that on the 7th September 1886, he presented an application for review, that the application was not refused unit the 17th November following, and that his time having been taken u...
Rash Behari Mukerjee and anr. Vs. Pitambori Chowdhrani and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jan-05-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal237
Beverley, J.1. We are of opinion that the decision of the lower appellate Court in this case is correct, and that this appeal must fail.2. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for arrears of road and public works cesses alleged to be due on account of certain rent-free land, and they claimed to recover double the amount due under Section 58 of the Cess Act (Bengal Act IX of 1880). The first Court found that, inasmuch as notice of the valuation had not been published in accordance with Section 52, the provisions of Section 58 were not applicable to the ease; bat that, although the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover double cesses under that section, they were entitled to recover the cesser with interest under Section 62 of the Act. On appeal by the defendants the District Judge has held that under Section 56 the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover the cesses at all.3. It is contended before us that the Judge is wrong, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the cesses under...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›