Kolkata Court December 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.
Gur Buksh Roy Alias Gur Buksh Singh Vs. Jeolal Roy and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-20-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal127
Mitter and Beverley, JJ.1. The question that we have to decide in this case is whether, upon the facts found by the lower Courts, the plaintiff has acquired a right of occupancy in respect of the land in dispute.2. The facts of the case are these: The land in dispute lies within a four-anna divided putti. It lies wholly within that putti, that putti being divided by metes and bounds from the other putti. It is not stated in the plaint, but it appears from the deposition of the plaintiff, who was the only witness examined by the Munsif, that the land in dispute was let out to him from the beginning of the year 1278 or 1871. It further appears from that deposition that in the year 1878 he acquired by purchase a fractional share in the proprietary right of the putti itself. The present suit was brought on the 30th of March 1886, the plaintiff alleging dispossession by the defendants on the 1st Jeyt 1292, that is, some time in May 1885. Upon these facts the Munsif, accepting them as establ...
Sheonath Doss Vs. Janki Prosad Singh and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-19-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal133
Banerjee, J.1. The only question raised in this appeal, and the only question tried in the Courts below, is, whether the mortgagee, who has bought the mortgaged property at a sale in execution of a decree upon the mortgage bond, is at liberty to take out further execution for the balance of the amount decreed left after deducting the price for which the property was sold; or whether he is bound to give the mortgagor judgment-debtor, credit, not only for such price, but for the real value of the property sold to be ascertained by the Court; in other words, whether the mortgagee, by his purchase, became the absolute owner of the property, or took it in trust for the mortgagor. Both the Courts below have answered this question in favour of the mortgagor, and the Lower Appellate Court has ordered execution to issue only for the balance left after deducting from the amount of the decree what it found to be the real value of the property sold. We think the decision of the Courts below is not...
Madhub Chunder Mozumdar Vs. Novodeep Chunder Pundit
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-18-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal126
Mitter and Macpherson, JJ.1. The evidence has been placed before us, and we think that the conclusion to which the lower Court has come on that evidence is right. As regards the question of law which has been argued, viz., that the present case does not come within the purview of Section 210 of the Indian Penal Code, because the satisfaction of the decree was of such a nature as could not be recognized by the Court executing the decree, we do not think that that contention is valid. The words of the section are: 'Whoever fraudulently causes a decree to be executed against any person after it has been satisfied, etc.' The words 'after it has been satisfied' indicate, in our opinion, the fact of its satisfaction. Merely because the satisfaction is of such a nature that the Court executing the decree could not recognise it would not take the case out of the purview of the section. We therefore dismiss this appeal....
Kalup Nath Singh Vs. Lala RamdeIn Lal and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-07-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal117
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is a suit brought by the plaintiff against the defendants to obtain certain declarations, and the facts of the case are, that the plaintiff and the defendants are co-sharers in a mehal called Mehal Soa, and that the defendants had taken proceedings before the Collector for the purpose of having that mehal partitioned amongst the co-sharers. The plaintiff objects to these proceedings on the ground that the mehal in question has already been partitioned, and he has accordingly brought this suit.2. There are six prayers to the plaint. They are: (a) that it be declared that the lands of Mehal Soa have, from before, been separately in possession of the puttidars according to private partition; (b) that it be declared that the defendants, the applicants for the butwara, have no right to get it partitioned by the Collectorate; (c) that the orders of the Revenue Court,, the last of which was passed by the Board of Revenue on the 8th April 1886, be set aside; (d) ...
Akshoy Kumar Nundi Vs. Chunder Mohun Chathati and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-04-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal250
O'Kinealy and Trevelyan, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of an application for execution of a decree. Previously in a litigation between the two parties, the defendants appealed from the decree of the first Court. That appeal was rejected on the ground that it was presented after time, and defendants then filed a second appeal to this Court which was dismissed with costs. On plaintiff seeking to take out execution of the decree, it was objected that the time ran from the date of the decree of the first Court, and that the application was barred. We do not think that that contention is correct. Section 4 of the Limitation Act says: 'Every suit instituted, appeal presented, and application made, after the period of limitation prescribed therefor by the second schedule hereto annexed, shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.' Section 5.* says: 'If the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed...
Abdul Majid Vs. Jew NaraIn Mahto and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Dec-03-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal233
Mitter and Macpherson, JJ.1. The plaintiff in this case brought a suit against Jew Narain Mahto and others for an account in regard to his share in a certain ticca transaction; his allegation being that he was a partner with the defendants in that ticca. It appears that these defendants had brought against him a suit for rent, alleging that they were the sole ticcadars, and that he, the plaintiff in this case, that is Abdul Majid, as a tenant of a portion of the ticca property, was liable to pay rant.2. In that suit Abdul Majid, the plaintiff in this suit, amongst other things, pleaded that no suit for rent would lie against him, as he was a partner in the ticca. It is thus clear that the issue whether the plaintiff in this suit, Abdul Majid, was a partner in the ticca with the defendants or not, was common in these two suits. Evidence was taken in these two suits bearing upon this issue, and it seems that by consent of the parties the evidence taken in one suit upon this issue was con...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›