Kolkata Court May 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.
Meser Mullick Vs. Hafizuddi Mullick and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-30-1888
Reported in: 9Ind.Cas.965
1. In this case we think the appeal must be allowed. The learned Judge holds, as the Munsif had done, practically, though in less distinct terms than the Munsif, that there was no proof of a grant. He holds, however, that by reason of the absence of proof of permission, the use, under the circumstances, of whatever the way was that he had been considering, must be taken to have been as of right. There we disagree with him. We think the character of the ground, the space for which the right is claimed, the relations between the parties, the circumstances under which the user took place, by which it is sought to establish the claim, these are matters that should be given their due weight, Now, here it is not disputed, and the Judge himself finds, that the way claimed lies through the defendants' oothan that is, the space immediately surrounding the house. The Judge does not connect the user of this way in any manner with the partition between the plaintiffs and the defendants, which we u...
Bholaram Dhubi Vs. Upoma KuchaIn and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-28-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal708
Macpherson, J.1.This is a suit by a husband against his wife for restitution of conjugal rights. The parties are residents of the district of Sibsagur in Assam, where the marriage was contracted ; the plaintiff is a Dhubi or washerman, and the defendant is a fisherwoman. The defence in the lower Court was, first that there was no marriage; and, secondly, that the marriage, if contracted, was invalid in law, as the contracting parties belonged to different castes.2. The Munsif held, first, that the marriage had been celebrated according to the usual Hindu rites; and, secondly, that there was no rule of law which would make an inter-marriage between persons belonging to different sects or sub-divisions of the Sudra caste invalid.3. The case was then carried on appeal before the Judge of the Assam valley District, who has disposed of the matter in a very summary way. He gets over the question as to the validity of the marriage by holding that the Hindu law of marriage does not apply to Ko...
Dhiku and anr. Vs. Deno Nath Deb Alias Dinu and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal712
Wilson, J.1. We think that the ruling of the High Court of Bombay in Queen-Empress v. Raja Lakshma 10 B. 230, to which the Sessions Judge refers, is one that should be followed, and that no appeal lay to the Deputy Commissioner. We set aside his order and direct that the order of the first Court be restored....
Kartick Nath Pandey and ors. Vs. Tilukdhari Lall, for Himself and as G ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-18-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal667
1. This in an appeal by the judgment-debtor under a mortgage decree of 23rd December 1878, made by the Subordinate Judge of Bhaugulpore. The mortgaged property, which by the decree is ordered to be sold, is wholly situated in the district of Monghyr, which district was formerly comprised within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Bhaugulpore. Since the passing of the decree, however, it appears that a Subordinate Judge has been appointed at Monghyr with a territorial jurisdiction conterminous with that district. An application having been made to the Subordinate Judge of Bhaugulpore to execute the decree and bring the mortgaged property to sale, the judgment-debtor objected that the property being now situated within the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Monghyr, the Subordinate Judge of Bhaugulpore had no jurisdiction to execute the decree and bring the property to sale. This objection was overruled by the Subordinate Judge, and the present appeal h...
Jogendro Chunder Ghose and anr. Vs. Dwarka Nath Karmokar and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-16-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal682
1. In this case the service of the notice, which it was sought to effect personally upon the defendant Khetramoni Dasi, was not proved in the opinion of the Courts below, they disbelieving the assertion of a Mahomedan witness who deposed to having actually handed the notice to the party to be served, she being a purdanashin woman. The service of the notice in another form was, however, proved, having been effected by a registered letter, the posting of which was proved, and which was produced in Court in the cover in which it was despatched, that cover containing the notice with an endorsement upon it purporting to be by an officer of the Post Office stating the refusal by the defendant to receive the document. Upon the cases cited before us--Lootf Ali Meah v. Pearee Mohun Roy 16 W.R. 223 and Papillon v. Brunton 5 H. & N. 518,-- and having regard also to Section 16, illustration (b) of the Evidence Act, we think that only a captious doubt could lead us to regard that service as insuffi...
Mothura Mohun Ghose Mondul Vs. Akhoy Kumar Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal558
1. This was a suit to set aside a sale in execution on the ground of fraud. The facts are that in 1880 defendant No. 2 brought a suit against the plaintiff for a half share of a certain jumma, and on the 31st January 1881 he obtained a decree for a four annas share with costs. Subsequently an amicable settlement was come to between the parties, by which the plaintiff gave up the half share of the jumma which was claimed, and defendant No. 2 relinquished his decree for costs. This arrangement, however, was not certified to the Court.2. On the 23rd January 1884 an application was made to the Court to execute the decree for costs, and in pursuance of that application a one-third share in a certain tank belonging to the plaintiff was brought to sale and purchased by defendant No. 1 on the 19th May 1884, Possession was not taken, however, till 12th June 1886, and on the 9th July 1886 plaintiff filed this suit to have the whole of the execution proceedings set aside on the ground of fraud, a...
Jugdeo NaraIn Singh Vs. Rajah Singh
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-08-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal657
Norris, J.1. The facts of this case appear to be as follows:Sheoram Singh, defendant No. 3, was the owner of a 1-anna 2-gundas share in certain mouzahs.2. One Holloway obtained a decree against Sheoram, and in execution of his decree attached and put up for sale his (Sheoram's) 1-anna 2 gundas share, which was purchased by the plaintiff on the 4th March 1884. After the plaintiff's purchase, defendant No. 1, who had also obtained a decree against Sheoram, proceeded to attach the same 1-anna 2 gundas share. The plaintiff objected to the attachment; and his objection was investigated and disallowed on the ground that he had not obtained the sale certificate.3. Upon his objection being disallowed the plaintiff deposited in Court Rs. 109-14-6, being the amount of the decree obtained by defendant No. 1 against defendant No. 3.4. Defendant No. 2 is the assignee of the defendant No. 1.5. Being defeated in his claim case plaintiff now brings this suit for the declaration of his purchased right ...
Nicol Vs. Mathoora Dass Dumani
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: May-02-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal507
ORDERWilson, J.1. The point raised in this matter is a small one, but it is desirable that it should be settled, because it is one which may be of frequent occurrence. What happened was this: A case came on before the learned Chief Judge of the Small Cause Court in which a question arose which he referred to this Court, and which this Court decided in the plaintiff's favour, and it was directed that this case should go back to be decided on its merits. The matter came on again before the learned Chief Judge, who fixed a day for dealing with the case on its merits, but in the meantime he made an order giving the plaintiff the costs of the reference to this Court. It is against that order that this rule has been obtained.2. The question before me is the same as was raised before the learned Judge on behalf of the defendant, viz., whether the learned Judge had power to deal with the costs of the reference at this stage, or must dispose of them at a later stage when dealing with the costs ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›