Kolkata Court April 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.
Rajendro NaraIn Roy Vs. Phudy Mondul and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal483
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The only question which is raised in this appeal is the question, what 1st he meaning of the word 'judgment-debtor' in Section 174 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. So far as I can see, the expression 'judgment-debtor' is an expression which is so well understood that it is impossible to give it any other than its well understood meaning, and that is, the person against whom a decree has been obtained. Mr. Evans suggests to us that it means not only the judgment-debtor himself, but also the assignee of the judgment-debtor's property, and that is the view which has been taken by Mr. Justice Norris. Mr. Justice Norris, in discussing the matter, discusses it on the ground that the Legislature may well have taken a wider view of the matter, but the question is not what they might have done, nor what it would have been wise for them to do, but what they have done, and they have said, in this particular case, that the only person who is to have this privilege is the judgme...
Asmutunnissa Begum Vs. Ashruff Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal488
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. This is an appeal from an order confirming the sale of immoveable property under a decree, notwithstanding an objection under Section 311 of the Civil Procedure Code, on the ground of irregularities. The objector was not the judgment-debtor, but was a person who claimed the property as her own, alleging that she had bought it of the judgment-debtor prior to the attachment. The question which we have to consider is whether such a person is entitled to object to a sale under Section 311.2. The case of Abdul Huq Mozwndar v. Mohini Mohun Shaha 14 C. 240 is a clear authority that the words 'any person' in that section are to receive the widest meaning, and that any person whatever may come in and claim an interest in the property, and may apply under that section to set aside the sale. The earlier cases in this Court are under the section of the old Code, and take the opposite view.3. The case of Krishnarav Venkatesh v. Vasudev Anant 11 B.H.C. 15 shows, and we thin...
Krishno Kamini Chowdhbani Vs. Gopi Mohun Ghose Hazba
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal653
1. This case is referred upon the question whether or not it was cognizable by the Small Cause Court under Section 6 of the Small Cause Court Act (XI of 1865).2. The suit is brought by a purchaser in execution of a putni right to recover from the defendant No. 1, one of the former holders of the putni right, a sum of money equal to a portion of what she has been compelled to pay to the zemindar for rent.3. The rent which she has been compelled to pay accrued due, some of it before and some of it after the month of Srabun 1291. It was in Srabun that the plaintiff became the purchaser, and she claims from the defendant, whose putni right she purchased, payment of a portion of the sum which she has been compelled to pay in respect of the rent which accrued due prior to Srabun, stating that the other defendant, who is a co-sharer in the putni right so sold, and who is made defendant pro forma, had promised to pay his share claimed by the plaintiff on a similar ground, and that the defendan...
Purnima Dasi and Roma Nath Shi Vs. Prem Chand Pal
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-20-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal546
Norris, J.1. This case comes before us upon an appeal from the decision of the District Judge of Midnapore, who has reversed the decision of the First Subordinate Judge.2. The questions we have to determine are not free from difficulty; but upon the best consideration I have been able to give to the arguments which have been adduced on either side, the cases cited, and the judgment under appeal, I am of opinion that the decision of the lower Appellate Court is correct and should be affirmed. The facts of the case are as follows. His Lordship after stating the facts as above continued:The District Judge has given her a decree for this 5 1/2-anna share, and against this decree the auction-purchaser, at the sale held on the 26th of September 1883, for arrears of Government revenue, has appealed; and it has been urged before us by the learned pleader for the appellant that this judgment is wrong and should be reversed. His principal ground of appeal is that the District Judge was wrong in ...
Bhupendro Narayan Dutt and ors. Vs. Nemye Ghand Mondul
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-17-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal627
Norris, J.1. The Suudorbun lot No. 44 was the mourasi tenure of one Mohendro Narain Dutt. He died leaving a will, whereby he demised his properties, ancestral and self-acquired, to his four sons, Jogendro, Bbupendro, Ganendro and Norendro, in equal shares.2. After reciting that Jogendro, his son by his first wife, had come of age, and that the other three sons by his second wife were minors, the will proceeds as follows : 'I do hereby constitute and appoint Srimati Bhava Sundari Dasi, my wife and their mother, executrix on behalf of the minor sons. Until the attainment of majority by the said minor sons the said executrix shall remain in possession of all the property in their share, both moveable and immoveable ; shall collect and realize the rents, as also the monies that may be due to me on my account; shall preserve and take care of all the property ; shall educate and support the minors ; and shall administer the household expenditure, and celebtate the religious rites and ceremon...
Abdul HosseIn and anr. Vs. Asgar Reza and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-14-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal574
Ghose, J.1. The parties before us are rival claimants to a certificate under Act XXVII of 1860 to collect the debts due to the estate of a Mahomedan lady Khubunnissa Begum, who died in October last. They are, first, Abdul Hcssein and Ahmed Hossein, who are brothers of Khubunnissa; and, second, Syed Asgar Eeza and Dilawar Reza, her grandsons (daughter's sons).2. The claim of the brothers was founded upon the ground that the lady belonged to the Sunni sect of Mahomedans, and that therefore they being themselves Sunnis were her next heirs and as such entitled to the certificate; whereas the claim of the grandsons was upon the ground that she was a Shiah, and that they being Shiahs were her heirs, and therefore had the preferential title to the certificate in question.3. It appears that the case of the brothers was opened with the examination of five witnesses, who were called to prove that the deceased lady was born in a Sunni family, and that she was herself a Sunni up to the time of her...
Radhasyam Mohapattra Alias Madun Mohun Mohapattra Vs. Sibu Panda and a ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-12-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal647
1. This is an appeal from the decree of Mr. Worgan, the District Judge of Cuttack, who has reversed the decree of the Munsif.2. The facts of the case are shortly these: The plaintiff brought a suit' to recover possession of certain pieces of land, and the title under which he claimed was based upon a conveyance from the defendant No. 2, dated the 5th of October 1883. This conveyance was registered. The defendant No. 1, who was in possession of the land, also claimed to hold if under a conveyance from the defendant No. 2. This conveyance was dated the 9th of September 1883, and was unregistered. The defendant No. 1 alleged that he purchased for a sum of Rs. 99-12; the plaintiff alleged that he purchased for Rs. 198-8. Prima facie, therefore, the plaintiff's conveyance, being a registered document, would prevail over the conveyance of the defendant No. 1, which was unregistered.3. The defendant sought to defeat the plaintiff's stronger title based upon the registered conveyance by taking...
Pudmanund Singh and ors. Vs. Khub Lal Sahu and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-10-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal542
1. We are of opinion that this appeal must be allowed. The facts of the case appear to be these : There are two separate pieces of land, having separata jumma, with one towzi number. The plaintiff is the owner of one of these pieces of land, and the defendant is the owner of the other piece. The defendant did not pay the Government revenue in respect of his land from September 1873 to June 1885. Toe towzi number of both pieces being the same, there was danger of the plaintiff's portion being sold along with the defendant's holding for arrears of Government revenue in respect of toe defendant's holding. Plaintiff, to save his own estate, paid the Government revenue in respect of the defendant's from September 1873 to June 1885, and brings this suit to recover the amount he paid, namely, Rs. 700 principal and Rs. 485 interest.2. Both the lower Courts have given him a decree for the whole amount claimed, holding that Article 132, Schudle II of the Limitation Act applies to this suit; and ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›