Kolkata Court February 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.
Krishna Mohini Dossee Vs. Kedarnath Chuckerbutty and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-08-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal447
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This rule comes before this Court for the purpose of our revising an order of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagulpore, refusing to allow the assignee of a decree to execute the decree in her own name. The facts of the case appear to be that the decree was obtained some time ago, and was partially executed; but a considerable amount of the decree still remained to be realized when the decree-holder assigned the decree for valuable consideration to the person who has now petitioned the Subordinate Judge for execution. Upon the hearing of that application, it appeared that the judgment-debtor had obtained against the decree-holder who had assigned to the petitioner a decree for the recovery of certain immoveable property, and had also obtained an order that an enquiry should be made with the view of ascertaining what, if any, mesne profits were due from the decree-holder to the judgment-debtor, and upon that state of things the Subordinate Judge, acting under Section...
Raj Kishore Mozumdar and ors. Vs. Chunder Kishore Dey Alias Mukhori De ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal450
1. We think that the view of the law taken by the lower Court is correct. Section 184 of the Bengal Tenancy Act says that the suits, appeals and applications specified in Schedule III annexed to the Act shall be instituted and made within the times prescribed in that schedule; and then Schedule III, Article 3, mentions suits 'to recover possession of land claimed by the plaintiff as an occupancy raiyat,' and gives two years as the time of limitation. These words occurring in a Tenancy Act, the object of which is stated to be to amend and consolidate certain enactments relating to the law of Landlord and Tenant, naturally mean a suit by an occupancy raiyat as such, that is, an occupancy raiyat claiming a right of occupancy as against his landlord.2. The result is that the appeal must be dismissed with costs....
Peary Mohun Chowdhry Vs. Romesh Chunder Nondy
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-02-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal371
1. It is admitted that the sole question for our decision in this case is whether or not an appeal lay to the District Judge from the order of the first Subordinate Judge, dated 11th December, 1886. If there was no appeal from that order, the order of the District Judge, dated 27th May, 1887, was passed without jurisdiction, and although there would be no appeal against it to this Court we have intimated that in this case we are prepared to consider this appeal as an application under Section 622 of the Code to have that order set aside on the ground that it was made without jurisdiction.2. The facts as found by the District Judge are these: U. and P. had cross-decrees, P's decree being for the larger amount. E. had also a decree against U., in execution of which he applied to attach XL's decree against P. There is some question as to the date on which this application was granted, but the Judge finds it was prior to the 18th September, on which date an application by P. to execute his...
Syam Lal Sahu Vs. Luchman Chowdhry and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal353
1. This was a suit by a purchaser at a revenue sale to recover certain lauds on the allegation that they were the reformed lands of the estate which ha had purchased. This allegation was denied by the defendants, and the parties went to trial on this issue.2. The first Court erroneously threw out the suit on the ground of limitation without going into the merits. The lower appellate Court has overruled the plea of limitation, and on the merits has given the plaintiff a decree for so much of the land in dispute as is found to have been included within his estate at the time of the survey of 1846-47. The Subordinate Judge says: 'On the question of title there is, it has been admitted, no evidence on either side, excepting copies of two survey maps produced by the plaintiff, one being the survey map of 1846-47 and the other that of 1865-66. A local enquiry was held by the Civil Court Amin, and it was found that 2 bighas 1 3/4 dhurs according to the first map, and 14 bighas 17 cottahs 4 1/...
Sarfannessa and ors. Vs. Joykrishna Mukhopadhya and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-01-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal345
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is suit to set aside the sale of a putni tenure under Regulation VIII of 1819 on various grounds. The only grounds upon which the suit has been decreed are : that the proclamation of sale was not served according to law, and that the property has been sold for an inadequate price; and this appeal comes before us against that decision, and upon the appeal two points are argued. First, it is argued that even if the Subordinate Judge is right in the conclusion of fact at which he has arrived that the advertisement of sale was not served, still this suit cannot be maintained, because the plaintiff, although he is interested in the putni, is not and never has been registered in the serishta of the zemindar as the owner of the putni, and that without such registration the suit cannot under the provisions of the said Eegulation be maintained.2. The sections of the Regulation which are relied upon by the defendant in support of this contention are Sections 5 and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›