Kolkata Court June 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.
Bisva Nath Shah Vs. Naba Kumar Chowdhary
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-29-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal713
Macpherson, J.1. We are of opinion that Article 2 of the second schedule of Act IX of 1887 (Provincial Small Cause Courts Act) has no application to the present case, and that the suits for contribution which the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction to try are those specified in Articles 41 and 42, or which might come under Article 44. The present case does not come under any of these Articles. We think, therefore, the Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to deal with the case, and we set aside the order of the Judge, and direct him to proceed with it....
Dinesh Chunder Roy Chowdhry and anr., Minor Represented by their Next ...
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-26-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal89
Pigot and Rampini, JJ.Judgment in Appeal 1506.1. This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Judge of Dacca, dismissing a suit instituted by a person appointed as manager under the Court of Wards in respect of certain interests, to which we need not refer, relating to property of which he was appointed manager. The suit was dismissed by the District Judge under Section 55 of the Court of Wards Act (Bengal Act IX of 1879) as modified by Bengal Act III of 1881, which adds three words to the section It is admitted that the suit was filed in the lower Court without the order of the Board of Revenue, or the Court of Wards, or of the Commissioner, and proceeded to judgment in the original Court without any such sanction. The District Judge has held that the terms of Section 55 rendered the suit so coming before him one which he was bound to dismiss; and the appeal is against that decree.2. We are of opinion that the District Judge was right in dismissing the suit. The terms of the sect...
Monmohini Dasi Vs. Durga Churn Rai Chowdhry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-18-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal771
Pigot, J.1. We do not think it necessary to call upon the learned Counsel for the respondent. We have already intimated that as to the question of fraud, the lower appellate Court was right upon the matters argued before it. A question of fraud, which might perhaps have been a substantial and serious one, viz., that under Section 53 of Transfer of Property Act, was not taken by the parties or by the Court in either of the Courts below; and, following the ordinary rule, we think ourselves unable to entertain it here, although it is raised in the first paragraph of the memorandum of appeal.2. As to the second point, viz., the construction of Section 276, Code of Civil Procedure, we are driven to adopt the same rule as the Allahabad Court has done in the case of Ganga Din v. Khushali 7 A. 702. In truth, to reverse the decision of the lower appellate Court upon this point, it would be necessary to do that which the Legislature has abstained from doing, that is, to provide that a petition p...
Satcouri Pyne Vs. Luckey NaraIn Khettry
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal538
Trevelyan, J.1. This is a suit brought under the provisions of Section 77 of the Registration Act.2. The deed was executed on the 18th of September 1886. It was presented for registration on the 12th of January 1887 by the claimant, who applied for a summons against the executants. He was unable to serve the summons, and on the 30th of August 1887, the Registrar refused registration on the ground that more than eight months had elapsed.3. The only question argued before me is whether the Registrar must not be taken to have refused registration at some period within the eight months, and whether this suit is not consequently barred by limitation. There is express authority in favour of the defendant's contention, and there is also, I think, express authority against it.4. I was much pressed with Mr. Justice McPherson's decision, In the matter of Buttobehary Banerjee 11 B.L.R. 20, and there is no doubt that that case is undistinguishable from the present one.5. I think, however, that the...
Hurbuns Sabai and anr. Vs. Chunder Coomar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-15-1888
Reported in: (1889)ILR16Cal138
Pigot and Macpherson, JJ.1. This is an appeal from a decree in favour of the plaintiff by the Subordinate Judge of Shababad. The plaintiff brings this suit as son and heir of Lala Bhugwandut, who died on the 14th Kartick 1276, leaving the plaintiff, then an infant, and Ruttonjote, his widow, and mother of the plaintiff. The plaintiff says that Lala Bhugwandut, on 28th September 1866, purchased some property from Juneswar Das, the defendant's uncle, of which property, though by the deed of sale it was conveyed to Ruttonjote, Lala Bhugwandut was the real owner in the, name of Ruttonjote. The plaintiff says that after his father's death, and while he was an infant, the defendant brought an unfounded suit of pre-emption against Ruttonjote in respect of this property, and by compromise with her obtained a decree for the property and took possession of it. He says that he was the real owner, that Ruttonjote had no right to compromise the suit, that the decree was obtained fraudulently and il...
Oliullah Vs. Bachu Lal Khotta
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-11-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal707
Pigot, J.1. In this appeal a preliminary objection is taken to the appearance of the learned vakeel on behalf of the appellant. The appeal was presented by the appellant in person. There is no certificate by a vakeel that there are good grounds for the appeal; and a case decided by Bayley and Phear, JJ., Kishen Chunder Roy v. Hurish Chunder Bose 3 W.R. 216 is cited as showing that, under such circumstances, a vakeel will not be heard by this Court. Further, it appears upon enquiry by us that no order of the Court, such as is contemplated by Rule 86 and Rule 162, which refers to and keeps it in force, has been passed admitting the appeal. Under these circumstances the appeal has got on the Board without any guarantee whatever, either by a certificate from a vakeel or an order of a Judge after considering the case, that it is a proper case to be set down for hearing in second appeal, and we must wholly decline to entertain it. The case must therefore be struck out of the list.2. The appe...
Queen-empress Vs. Nilmadhub Mitter
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal595
W. Comer Petheram, C.J.1. The only fact which it is necessary to mention beyond that stated by the learned Judge is that the document, the admissibility of which is in question, was put in on Monday, May 21st, as being a document made under the provisions of Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and admissible in evidence without proof under the provisions of Section 80 of the Evidence Act, and that Baboo Kalinath Mitter was not called until the following Friday.2. Several questions have been raised and argued before us as being necessary to the decision of the general question whether the document upon the facts proved at the trial was properly admitted as evidence against the prisoner. They were: 1st, does Section 164 apply to a statement made by a person in custody, to a Magistrate in Calcutta in the course of an investigation, made by the police in the town of Calcutta, into the circumstances of a crime committed in Calcutta? Secondly, if it does not, was the document; in que...
Bama Churn Chattopadhya and anr. Vs. Huri Das Bundopadhya
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-07-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal780
1. The property in dispute in this case belonged to one Nobin Chunder Bundopadhya; and the question raised before us in appeal is whether or no the plaintiff, who is the brother's daughter's son of the said Nobin Chunder, is preferential heir to the defendants, who are his (Nobin's) paternal grandfather's great grandsons. The parties are governed by the Dayabhaga school of law.2. This question is indeed a difficult one. In the case of Gobindo Huree-kar v. Womesh Chunder Roy W.R.F. B 176 it was held by a Bench of three Judges of this Court that a father's brother's daughter's son is no heir according to Hindu law. This decision was subsequently overruled in the case of Gooroo Gobind Shaha v. Anund Lal Ghose 13 W.R. (F.B.) 49 (57) it being then held that according to the true interpretation of the Dayabhaga, and the 'principle of spiritual benefit which constitutes the fundamental basis of the Law of Inheritance, propounded by the Dayabhaga,' a father's brother's daughter's son, who occu...
Abhoyeswari Dabi Vs. Sidheswari Dabi
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-04-1888
Reported in: (1888)ILR15Cal818
1. This is an appeal from an order of the Judge of the Assam valley Districts appointing a receiver of a large property which is the subject of a pending suit. The plaintiff in this suit; is a widow of the Rajah of Bijni, who died on the 9th of March 1883, and she claims the entire estate of the Rajah on the grounds that the defendant, who claims to be the elder widow, was not married to the Rajah, and that, even if she was married, she has forfeited her rights by unchastity both before and after the Rajah's death. She further, in the alternative, claims a moiety of the estate as co-heiress with the defendant, or, should the defendant's exclusive title be established, that a suitable sum for her maintenance should be fixed and made a charge on the property. The appointment of a receiver is asked for on the ground that the defendant has grossly mismanaged the property, and had wasted, and would continue to waste, large sums of money. The defendant contends that she is, and has been sinc...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›